/>'- 


^ 


^'/7h^JY^-',' 


L113RARY 

OF  THE 

University  of  California, 

Mrs.  SARAH  P.  WALSWORTH. 

Received  October,  18^4. 
^Accessions  A^o.,5X.^^.3..-      Class  No. 


POPULAR   OBJECTIONS 


TO 


REVEALED    TRUTH 


POPULAR    OBJECTIONS 


REVEALED   TRUTH 


CONSIDERED    IN    A 

^txxt^   of   %ttt\xxtn 

DELIVERED     IN    THE    NEW    HALL    OF    SCIENCE, 

OLD   STREET,   CITY   ROAD,   UNDER   THE  AUSPICES  OF  THE 

CHRISTIAN   EVIDENCE   SOCIETY. 

Of  THE 

toirivBESiTy; 

^tb    fork: 
A.     D.    F.    RANDOLPH    &     Co. 

770,    BROADWAY. 
MDCCCLXXIII. 


fSTiioi 


b^^Lf2> 


OO^   Of  THE 

[xririvsEsiTT] 

PREFACE 


THE  Lectures  contained  in  this  volume  wfere 
delivered  to  audiences  consisting  almost  ex- 
clusively of  working  men,  and  are  intended  to  deal 
with  some  of  the  objections  to  revealed  religion 
that  are  current  amongst  them.  This  will  explain 
the  allusions  that  are  made  in  some  of  the  Lectures, 
and  will  supply  the  reason  for  dwelling  more  em- 
phatically upon  some  of  the  points  which  are 
introduced,  as  being  points  which,  it  is  known,  are 
felt  or  regarded  as  special  difficulties  by  those 
to  whom  the  Lectures  were  addressed. 

At  the  close  of  each  Lecture,  discussion  was 
invited,  and  three  speeches  followed  on  either  side, 
of  ten  minutes  in  duration.  It  will  be  seen  that 
reference  is  made  in  several  places  to  the  subse- 
quent discussion. 

The  Lecture  on  the  "Historical  Evidence  of  the 

b 


vi  Preface. 

Resurrection  "  was  not  actually  delivered  as  part 
of  the  series,  but  it  was  written  by  the  Rev.  C.  A^ 
Row,  at  the  request  of  the  Committee,  and  has 
been  embodied  in  the  volume  as  a  supplemental 
Lecture. 

A  considerable  number  of  the  single  Lectures 
have  already  been  circulated  :  the  Committee  hope 
that  additional  interest  will  be  taken  in  them 
now  that  they  are  collected  into  one  volume. 

A  tolerably  full  "  Table  of  Contents  "  has  been 
drav/n  up  and  prefixed  to  the  volume.  The  out- 
line of  the  argument  in  each  lecture  may  thus  be 
readily  seen  ;  and  it  is  hoped  that  the  usefulness  of 
the  volume  will  be  hereby  increased. 

The  Committee  perhaps  ought  to  add  that  no 
censorship  has  been  exercised  over  the  Lectures. 
Each  author  is  responsible  for  his  own  Lecture, 
and  for  that  alone. 

Offices,  2,  Duke  Street, 
Adelphi,  W.C, 
June,   1873. 


>>  Of  XHK 


TABLE    OF    CONTENTS. 


LECTURE  I. 

SECULARISM    AND    ATHEISM. 

By  Rev.  A,  J.  Harrison. 

PAGE 

I.  Examination  of  certain  terms,   phrases,   etc.,   com- 

monly associated  with  non-Christian  Secularism  : 
Infidelity,  Scepticism,  free-thought. — Non-responsi- 
bihty  for  belief. — Sinlessness  of  sincerity. — "  Wide 
spread  "  of  Scepticism  (Atheism). 

II.  (i.)  Secularism,  in  its  strict  sense,  and  as  popularly 

employed. — (2.)  Mr.  Holyoake's  scheme  of  Secular- 
ism.— Implicit  acknowledgment  of  possible  exist- 
ence of  God,  and  of  need  of  revelation. — (3.)  Value 
of  Christian  Secularism. — (4.)  Mr.  Bradlaugh's  Se- 
cularism ;  confessedly  leads  to  Atheism  ;  otherwise 
nothing  distinctive  in  its  principles. — (5.)  Atheism 
is  simply  a  negation  :  cannot  supply  any  positive 
scheme  of  morality. — (6.)  Is  it  necessary  to  give  up 
belief  in  God  in  order  to  learn  Science  ? — (7).  In- 
consistent conduct  of  Atheists  in  arguing  as  to 
nature  of  Deity. — (8.)  Examination  of  the  principle 


viii  Contents. 

PAGE 

that  "Secular  reason  is  sufficient  for  guidance  in 
human  duties."  " 
III.  Conclusion.      Belief  in   God   an    instinct   of  man- 
kind.— Appeal  to   examine  and  weigh  thoughtfully 
the  claims  of  Christianity. i 


LECTURE  II. 

ON  HUMAN  RESPONSIBILITY. 

By  Rev,  C.  A.  Row,  M.A. 

I.  Belief  in    responsibility  universal. — Proved    by    the 

structure  of  language. — The  instinctive  feeling  ©f.-— 
Responsibility  implies  freedom. — Nature  and  limi- 
tations of  freedom. — Freedom  implied  in  assigning 
virtuousness  or  viciousness  to  any  action. 

II.  Atheism  teaches  that  all  the  laws  of  the  universe  are 

necessary  and  unalterable. — Whence  then  came  the 
power  of  choice,  and  the  phenomena  of  moral 
action?  Proof  of  freedom  derived  from  the  testimony 
of  consciousness. 

III.  Objections  considered,  (i.)  That  the  testimony  of 
consciousness  to  a  fact,  does  not  make  that  fact 
certain  ;  (2)  that  our  actions  are  simply  regulated 
by  the  strongest  motives  ;  (3)  that  our  tendencies, 
whether  to  good  or  evil,  are  very  greatly  hereditary ; 
(4)  that  we  are  the  creatures  of  birth  and  educa- 
tion, etc.  ;  (5)  that  the  law  of  averages  shows  that 
we  are  not  free. 

Belief  m  freedom  remains,  notwithstanding  all 
these  objections.  If  then  man  be  responsible,  to 
whom  is  he  responsible  t  to  himself  ?  or  to  society  ? 


Contents.  ix 

PAGE 

or  to  One  who  is  altogether  higher  than,  and  external 
to  himself,  Le.^  God  ? 
The  facts    of  consciousness   prove  finally  that  man  is 
responsible  to  God,  and  that,  so  far  as  his  actions 
are  voluntary,  he  is  accountable  for  them.        .         .     29 


LECTURE   III. 

CHRISTIANITY   IS    NOT   THE   INVENTION   OF   IMPOSTORS   OR 
OF  CREDULOUS   ENTHUSIASTS. 

By  Rev.  John  Gritton. 

I.  Impossibility  of  denying  the  existence  of  Christianity  ; 

still  there  are  various  views  as  to  its  origin : 
(i)  The  mythic  view  ;  (2)  that  it  is  the  invention 
of  enthusiasts  ;  (3)  of  impostors  ;  (4)  that  its  origin 
is  really  such  as  described  in  the  Gospels. 

II.  Examination  of  the  view  that  it  is  the  invention  of 
credulous  enthusiasts. — (i.)  General  description  of 
the  character  of  an  enthusiast. — (2.)  Incompatibi- 
lity of  this  assumption  (i.)  with  our  Lord's  character  ; 
(ii.)  with  the  minute,  historical,  geographical  notes, 
etc.,  contained  in  the  Gospels  ;  (iii.)  with  the  moral 
teaching  contained  both  in  the  Gospels  and  Epis- 
tles. 

III.  Examination  of  the  view  that  Christianity  is  the  in- 
vention of  impostors.  Objections  urged. — (i.)  Mani- 
fold probability  of  an  impositionbeing  detected  on  the 
ground  of  inaccuracies  in  history,  geography,  etc.— 
(2.)  The  great  improbability  that  a  pure  morality 
should  be  invented  by  impostors  ;  (3)  or  a  perfect 
ideal,  such  as  we  find  in  the  character  of  Christ. — 


X  Contents. 

PAGE 

(4.)    How,   on  this  view,   can  we  account  for  the 
actual  results  of  Christianity  on  the  consciences  and 
lives  of  men  ? 
IV.  Brief  survey  of  the  external  evidences  to  the  truth 

of  the  Bible       .         .       , 61 


LECTURE  IV. 

THE  FACTS  OF  CHRISTIANITY  HISTORICALLY  TRUE. 

By  B.  Harris  Cowper,  Esq. 

I.  Christianity  open  to  criticism  equally  with  any  other 

history.  Its  supernatural  facts  must  be  examined 
in  the  same  manner  as  its  ordinary  facts. 

II.  (i.)  The  form  of  the  New  Testament  is  real  and  histo- 

rical.— (2.)  the  facts  recorded  belong  to  a  known 
historical  age. — (3. )  The  accuracy  of  its  geography. 
— (4.)  Absence  of  imaginary  characters. —  (5.)  Inci- 
dental confirmation  of  its  historical  trustworthiness. 
— (6.)  Absence  of  rhetorical  phraseology. — Simple 
and  natural  style  of  writing. — (7.)  High  character  of 
its  moral  teaching. 

III.  External  testimony  to  the  truth  of  the  New  Testament, 
(i.)  It  was  accepted  from  the  earliest  times  by  men 
of  learning  and  philosophers  ;  (2)  acknowledged 
even  by  heretics. — Objections  considered  :  (i.)  The 
existence  of  the  Apocryphal  Gospels. — (ii.)  The 
alleged  silence  of  contemporary  historians. 

IV.  Testimony  to  the  truth  of  Christianity  borne  by  the 
lives  of  the  early  believers 89 


Contents.  xi 

PAGE 

LECTURE  V. 

SCIENCE  AND   SCRIPTURE  NOT  ANTAGONISTIC. 
By  Rev.  G.  Henslow,  M.A.,  F.L.S.,  F.G.S. 

Part  I.  Introductory — The  objects  of  Science. — Notice 
of  objections  that  are  sometimes  made  to  various 
branches  of  Science,  especially  to  Geology  and  the 
doctrine  of  Evolution. 

Part  II.  The  Scripture,  or  the  Bible:  its  moral  charac- 
teristics.— The  object  of  the  Bible  distinct  from  that 
of  Science.— Mode  of  stating  scientific  facts  in  the 
Bible. 

Part  III.  Genesis  compared  with  Geology. — Use  of  the 
word  "  Yom  "  (day)  in  Gen.  i. — Suggested  explana- 
tion.—  Comparison  of  the  order  of  Creation,  as  re- 
corded in  Gen.  i.,  with  the  teachings  of  Geology. 

Part  IV.  The  Doctrine  of  Evolution. — No  real  opposition 
in  Genesis,  rightly  understood,  to  this  doctrine; — 
man,  in  his  intellectual  and  moral  nature,  being 
exempted  from  its  scope. — General  support  given  by 
scientific  examination  of  Nature  to  the  truthfulness 
of  Scripture 115 


LECTURE  VI. 

MORAL    TEACHING  OF  THE  OLD    TESTAMENT  VINDICATED. 
By  Rev.  J.  H.  Titcomb,  M.A. 

I.  Position  of  primaeval  man. — Objections  to  the  History 
of  the  Fall  considered. — 2.   Early  deterioration   of 


jcii  Contents. 

PAGE 

morals. — 3.  The  Flood  :  "  God  repented  that  He 
had  made  man." — 4.  The  Flood,  no  objection  to  the 
Divine  benevolence. — 5.  The  early  History  of  the 
Old  Testament  shows  the  development  of  moral 
progress  to  have  been  slow  and  gradual,  just  as  we 
should  have  anticipated. — 6.  Manner  of  God's  moral 
government  :  tolerance  of  evil  in  order  to  progres- 
sive amelioration. — 7.  Consideration  of  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  Canaanites  and  Amalekites: — (i.)  Has 
God  a  moral  right  to  annihilate  nations  which  are 
incurably  corrupt?  (ii.)  or  to  make  their  fellow-crea- 
tures their  executioners  ? — 8.  Difficulty  considered 
respecting  Noah's  curse  upon  Ham. — 9.  Respecting 
Abraham's  intended  sacrifice  of  Isaac— 10.  Some 
canons  of  criticism: — (i.)  Every  sentiment  in  a 
book  written  by  inspiration  ^  is  not  itself  neces- 
sarily inspired,  (ii.)  Every  action  of  inspired  men 
not  necessarily  performed  under  the  guidance  of 
God.  (iii.)  Jewish  writers  frequently  attribute  to 
God  Himself  the  evils  which  He  permitted  in  His 
Providence. 
Summing  up  of  the  principles  applied  in  the  lecture  to 

the  solution  of  Old  Testament  difficulties  .         .   143 


LECTURE  Vn. 

THE   METAPHORICAL  LANGUAGE  APPLIED   TO  GOD    IN 
THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 

By  Rev.  R.  B.  Girdlestone,  M.A. 
I.  Teachers  must  adapt  themselves  to  the  capabilities  of 


Contents.  xiii 

PAGE 

Himself  to  man,  uses  terms  intelligible  to  him,  and 
reveals  Himself  under  human  metaphors. 

II.  Objections  made  to  the  manner  in  which  God  is 
described  in  the  Old  Testament. — Collection  of  some 
of  the  human  attributes  assigned  to  God  in  the 
Bible. — Cautions  requisite  in  interpreting  them. 

III.  These  anthropomorphic  expressions  are  not  intended 
to  describe  the  essential  nature  of  God,  but  only  to 
reveal  to  us  God  in  His  relations  to  man. 

V.  Important  to  notice  that,  man  having  being  created 
in  God's  likeness,  we  should  expect  to  find  in  man 
the  characteristics  of  God  :  hence  another  justifica- 
tion of  anthropomorphic  language. 
V.  The  Old  Testament  itself  contains  sufficient  safe- 
guards against  the  possibility  of  a  literal  interpreta- 

.•    tion  of  its  figurative  language 175 


LECTURE  VIII. 

MIRACLES   AS  CREDENTIALS  OF  A  REVELATION. 

By  J.  H.  Gladstone,  Ph.D.,  F.R.S. 

I.  Manner  of  regarding  miracles  is  different  now  from 

what  it  has  been  in  any  previous  age. — Advance  of 
Natural  Science  the  principal  cause  of  this  change  of 
view,  not  so  much  in  demonstrating  that  nature  is 
regulated  by  order,  as  in  showing  that  its  arrange- 
ments are  independent  of  men's  interests. 

II.  A  miracle  implies  that  the  course  of  nature  some- 

times is  altered  for  the  benefit  of  man. — Chief 
difficulty  in  believing  this  lies  in  our  conception  of 


//    K         --     ■•-^ 


IUHI71ESIT 


xiv  Contents. 

PAGE 

God,  as  One  with  whom  is  "  no  variableness,"  etc. 
As  man  may  alter  the  course  of  nature  for  his 
own  good  by  a  new  direction  of  force,  etc.,  so  may 
the  Supreme  Will  effect  such  a  new  distribution  of 
force  as  is  necessary  for  working  a  miracle, — some- 
thing beyond  man's  power  to  effect,  this  distribu- 
tion, however,  being  part  of  the  fore-determined 
order  of  the  universe. 

III.  A  miracle  is  not  an  effect  without  a  cause,  and  is 
always  wrought  with  a  definite  purpose. — Man's 
need  of  a  revelation:  how  are  we  to  decide  whether 
a  messenger  professing  to  bear  a  revelation  be  true  or 
false  ? — Advantages  attending  a  miraculous  confirm- 
ation of  his  claims. 

IV.  Examination  of  the  Bible  History — Miracles  group 
themselves  mainly  round  Moses,  Elijah,  and  Christ, 
and  are  appealed  to  in  each  case  as  credentials  of 
the  preacher's  mission — Some  objections  considered. 
—Each  separate  miracle  must  be  regarded,  not 
merely  by  itself,  but  2ls  part  of  a  system. — The  testi- 
mony of  miracles  must  be  taken  in  connection  with 
the  other  evidences  of  Christianity  .         .         .201 


LECTURE  IX.      . 

THE  HISTORICAL  EVIDENCE  OF  THE   RESURRECTION  OF 
JESUS  CHRIST. 

By  Rev.  C.  A.  Row,  M.A. 

I.  The  truth  of  Christianity  dependent  on  the  fact  of  the 
resurrection. 
The  subject  treated  on  grounds  purely  historical. 


Contents.  xv 

PAGE 

Nothing  assumed  as  fact,  but  what  is  admitted  to  be 

so  by  all  eminent  modern  unbelievers. 
First  point  of  proof. — The  historical  existence  of  the 
Christian  Church. — Its  nature  and  importance. — 
The  Church  a  community. — The  resurrection  of 
Christ  a  rational  account  of  its  origin. — Nothing  else 
is. — As  the  Church  was  based  on  the  belief  of  the 
Messiahship  of  Jesus,  His  crucifixion  would  have  de- 
stroyed its  cohesion,  unless  its  members  could  have 
been  induced  to  believe  in  His  resurrection. — A 
living  Messiah  essential  to  its  existence. — It  is  the 
most  certain  of  facts  that  the  Church  attained  a 
new  life  after  the  crucifixion. 
II. — Answer  to  the  charge  of  want  of  contemporaneous 
evidence. — Four  epistles  of  St.  Paul  admitted  by  the 
most  eminent  unbelievers  to  be  genuine.— The  im- 
portance of  contemporaneous  letters  as  historical 
evidences. — These  letters  written  within  the  most  dis- 
tinct period  of  historical  recollection. — Illustrated 
by  modern  examples. — The  impossibility  of  the 
growth  of  myths  or  legends  under  the  circum- 
stances. 
III.  (i.)  That  St.  Paul  himself  believed  in  the  fact  of  the 
resurrection  within  less  than  ten  years  from  its 
alleged  date.  (2.)  That  the  Churches  to  whom  he 
wrote  assumed  its  truth  as  the  only  ground  of  their 
existence  within  twenty-eight  years  of  the  cruci- 
fixion.— (3.)  That  these  Churches  accepted  it  as  a 
fact  at  a  still  earlier  period. — (4.)  That  they  all  ac- 
cepted it  as  the  ground  of  their  existence,  notwith- 
standing the  presence  of  a  strong  spirit  of  party. — 
(5.)  That  all  the  parties  in  the  Church  accepted  it. 
— (6.)  That  it  was  equally  accepted  by  Churches 
not  planted  by  St.  Paul,  as  by  those  founded  by 
him. — (7.)  That  the  belief  was  spread  over  a  wide 
geographical  area.— (8.)  That  it  was  the  belief  of 


;5cvi  Contents. 

PAGE 

the  great  Gentile  Church  at  Aritioch,  and  of  the 
mother  Church  of  Jerusalem. — (9.)  That  the  testi- 
mony of  these  epistles  carries  with  it  that  of  Peter, 
James,  and  John,  that  they  had  seen  Jesus  Christ 
risen  from  the  dead.— (10.)  The  belief  in  the  resurrec- 
tion no  late  fiction,  but  can  be  traced  up  to  within 
less  than  ten  years  of  the  crucifixion,  as  the  univer- 
sal belief  of  the  Church. — (11.)  The  impossibility 
of  its  having  been  either  a  myth,  legend,  or  lying 
invention. 
The  only  satisfactory  and  rational  account  of  the  charac- 
ter and  acts  of  the  early  Church  is,  that  Jesus  did 
really  rise,  and  appear  to  those  who  are  asserted 
in  the  Gospels  to  have  seen  Him. — Difficulties  as  to 
details  in  the  Gospel  narrative  no  sufficient  objec- 
tion to  the  credibility  of  that  which  they  profess  to 
relate. —The  character  of  the  Gospels  as  histories   ,  225 

Appendix. 

Collection  and  brief  examination  of  several  passages 
in  St.  Paul's  Epistles  to  the  Romans,  Corinthians, 
and  Galatians,  in  which  reference,  either  direct, 
incidental,  or  inferential,  is  made  to  the  fact  of  the 
Resurrection 255 


LECTURE   X. 

THE  MORAL  TEACHING  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 
By  Rev.  Henry  Allon,  D.D. 

Christianity  distinct  from  philosophy,  morality,  or  social 
economy  ;  yet  includes  all  these,  and  professes  to 
exhibit  them  in  their  highest  form. 


,  Contents.  xvii 

PAGE 

Examination  of  the  moral  system  of  Christianity. — I. 
The  general  principles  of  Christian  Ethics. — i.  The 
moral  sentiment  of  human  nature  has  two  necessary 
relations  to  Christianity  :  (i)  To  this  moral  senti- 
ment every  religious  system  must  ultimately  appeal. 
(ii.)  The  final  cause  of  every  true  religious  system 
must  be  righteousness. — 2.  The  root  of  all  morality 
is  the  consciousness  of  right  and  wrong. — 3.  Com- 
parison of  Christian  morality  with  the  Ethics  of 
some  other  systems. — 4.  Progressive  growth  in  the 
perception  and  realization  by  Christian  men  of 
Christ's  teaching.  —  5.  Christianity  a  system  em- 
bracing principles  applicable  to  all  men  everywhere. 
— 6.  Enthusiasm  for  righteousness  created  by  our 
personal  relation  to  Christ. 

II.  The  moral  value  of  the  separate  elements  of  the 
Christian  system  briefly  considered.—  i.  The  nature 
and  importance  of  dogma  in  general.  Value  of  the 
dogmas,  (i.)  of  the  Incarnation  ;  (ii.)  of  Christ's 
human  sinlessness  ;  (iii.)  of  His  sacrificial  Atone- 
ment (vindication  of  its  morality)  ;  (iv.)  of  spirit- 
ual regeneration  ;  (v.)  of  election  ;  (vi.)  of  the  final 
destiny  of  the  wicked. — 2.  Excellence  of  the  prin- 
ciples and  precepts  enunciated  by  Christ. — 5.  The 
moral  teaching  of  St.  Paul's  Epistles. — The  ideal 
of  Christianity  to  be  realized  hereafter      .        .        .  263 


LECTURE   XI. 

THE  GRADUAL  UNFOLDING  OF  REVELATION. 

By  Rev.  Gordon  Calthrop,  M.A. 

I.  The  teachings  of  the  Bible  constantly  exemplified  in 
the  history  of  society  and  the   world. — Assuming 


xviii  -  Contents.  • 

PAGE 

the  existence  of  God,  it  follows  (i.)  that  it  must  be 
very  important  for  man  to  know  his  relations  to- 
wards God;  and  (ii.)  that  any  knowledge  of  Himself 
which  the  infinite  God  may  give  to  finite  man,  would 
be  in  the  way  of  a  gradual  unfolding. 

II.  Geology  teaches  that  the  world  was  being  gradually 

fitted  through  long  ages  for  being  the  abode  of  man; 
analogously  we  may  believe  that  God  is  preparing 
mankind  by  progressive  stages  for  some  great  end 
still  future. — It  is  difficult  for  us  to  understand  the 
character  of  a  building,  whilst  still  surrounded  by 
scaffolding,  etc.,  or  to  criticize  a  piece  of  music,  until 
we  have  heard  the  combined  harmony  of  its  several 
parts  :  a  similar  difficulty  hinders  us  from  perfectly 
understanding  Revelation,  until  we  can  survey  it 
as  a  completed  whole. 

III.  Gradual  growth  in  moral  sense  of  children; 
similar  growth  in  that  of  the  human  race:  illustrated 
in  the  Bible  History. — Comparison  of  Adam  with 
David.  Value  of  the  Levitical  system. — Gradual 
education  of  the  Jews  until  they  were  in  a  position 
to  understand  Christ's  doctrine  of  the  Fatherhood  of 
God. — Gradual  growth  of  Christianity  itself,  analo- 
gous to  God's  ordinary  mode  of  dealing  with  men    .  299 


LECTURE  XII. 

PERFECTION  OF  THE  HUMAN  CHARACTER  OF  JESUS  CHRIST. 

By  Rev.  Canon  Barry,  D.D. 

Influence  of  a  man's  character. — Interest  attaching  to 
the  character  of  Jesus  Christ. — In  considering  a 
man's  life,  two  classes  of  facts — visible  and  invisible 


Contents.  xix 

PAGE 

— must  be  taken  into  account.  The  perfection  of 
Christ's  character  bears  upon  both  these  classes  of 
facts. — Meaning  of  the  term  "perfection." 
Three  ways  of  estimating  character.  — i.  In  relation  to 
its  general  tone  and  impress.  The  character  of 
Jesus  Christ  bears  both  the  mark  of  strong  deep 
individuality,  and  of  true  universal  humanity ; — the 
two  sides  of  perfection. 

2.  In  relation  to  its  component  parts,  and  their  harmony 

with  one  another.  A  character  is  perfect  which 
fulfils  all  the  relations  of  humanity,  viz.,  to  self,  to 
men,  and  to  something  above  mankind,  God. — 
(i.)  Three  qualities  belonging  to  man,  as  an  indi- 
vidual, viz.,  the  love  of  truth,  the  spirit  of  purity, 
and  the  spirit  of  manliness  :  Christ  perfect  in  respect 
of  all  these. — (ii.)  Two  ruling  principles  in  our  re- 
lations to  one  another,  viz.,  the  spirit  of  righteous- 
ness and  the  spirit  of  love:  Christ's  character 
considered  in  respect  of  both. — (iii.)  In  our  relation 
to  God,  perfection  consists  in  the  spirit  of  Sonship, 
fully  illustrated  in  the  life  of  Jesus  Christ. 

3.  In   relation  to   the   great  aim   of  life,   and   its    de- 

votion to  it.  Christ's  aim, — both  the  regeneration  of 
the  individual,  and  the  renewal  of  the  social  life  of 
humanity. 
Conclusion.— Christ's  character  consists  in  something 
else  than  mere  human  perfection. — Nature  of 
His  self-assertion. — Reasonableness  of  believing  in 
Christ's  teaching,  even  though  it  passes  our  full 
comprehension 319 


THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  SECULARISM  AND 
ATHEISM  INADEQUATE  TO  SATISFY 
THE  WANTS  OF  MAN. 


REV.   A.  J.    HARRISON, 


CURATE  OF  SHUTTLEWORTH. 


^U^  09  THB 

IUII78RSITT1 

Secularism   and  Atheism, 


I  PROPOSE,  in  the  first  part  of  my  lecture,  to  examine 
certain  phrases,  arguments,  and  assertions  which 
are  commonly  associated  with  non-Christian  secularism 
or  atheism  \  in  the  second  part  to  deal  with  the  claims  of 
the  systems  of  which  Mr.  Holyoake  and  Mr.  Bradlaugh 
are,  respectively,  the  chief  representatives,  and  with  the 
pretensions  of  atheism  itself. 

I.  (i).  The  words  "infidel"  and  "  infidelity"  have  in 
common  speech  almost  lost  their  first  meaning,  and  are 
now  chiefly  used  as  terms  of  reproach  or  abuse.  If  we  call 
Secularists  or  Atheists  infidels,  Mr.  Holyoake  or  Mr.  Brad- 
laugh  has  a  perfect  right  to  retort  that  though  the  name 
applies  truly  enough  to  them  in  one  respect,  it  applies 
with  no  less  truth  to  ourselves  in  another  respect.  If 
they  are  infidels  in  relation  to  our  teaching,  we  are  as  cer- 
tainly infidels  in  relation  to  their  teaching.  If  they  are 
unbelievers  in  Christian  or  even  Natural  Religion,  we  are 
unbelievers  in  Secular  or  Atheistic  Irreligion.  And  if  we 
resume  its  original  meaning,  we  shall  never  use  the  word 
"infidel,"  unless  when  we  intend  to  convey  the  reproach 
of  unfaithfulness  to  moral  obligation. 

(2.)  Sceptic  and  scepticism  are  another  pair  of  words 
whose  use  requires  peculiar  care,    A  sceptic  is  properly  a 


4  Secularism  and  Atheism. 

thinker  who  is  determined,  with  physical,  intellectual, 
or  spiritual  eyes,  to  see  into  physical,  intellectual,  or  spirit- 
ual/dtr/i-,  before  forming,  and  especially  before  teaching, 
any  doctrine  concerning  those  facts.  And  scepticism 
denotes  the  mental  attitude  of  the  enquirer  towards  any 
doctrine  whose  truth  he  is  examining,  but  concerning 
which  he  has  not  yet  decided.  But,  as  commonly  used, 
scepticism  simply  denotes  unbelief ;  and  in  this  sense  has 
received  on  the  one  side  most  unreasoning  blame,  on  the 
other  most  extravagant  praise.  Some  unwise  theo- 
logians have  denounced  it  as  a  vice ;  some  equally  unwise 
antitheologians  have  commended  it  as  a  virtue ;  whereas 
both  ought  to  have  known  that  the  worth  or  worthlessness 
of  unbelief  wholly  depends  upon  the  truth  or  untruth  of 
the  teaching  in  relation  to  which  it  is  exercised.  But 
even  in  its  proper  sense,  to  glory  in  scepticism,  as  such, 
is  certainly  no  sign  of  sober  thought ;  seeing  that  the  high- 
est function  of  doubt  is  to  make  way  for  a  wise  faith. 

(3.)  Free  thought  is  another  word  very  frequently  mis- 
applied. Atheists  claim  it  as  peculiar  or  almost  peculiar 
to  themselves;  they  glory  in  it  as  almost  their  highest 
intellectual  good.  And  yet  their  use  of  the  word  is  unfair 
and  unwise.  Unfair,  because  it  conveniently  assumes 
what  needs  to  be  proved,  that  only  atheists  are  free 
thinkers  ;  unwise,  because  they  who  deny  to  the  mind 
all  self-determining  power  cannot  reasonably  claim  to  be 
free  thinkers.  If  by  free  thought  is  meant  thought  wholly 
uninfluenced  by  past  or  present,  no  such  thing  as  free 
thought  exists.  But  if  the  phrase  simply  mean  honest 
thought,  then  the  use  of  the  word  as  if  it  were  peculiar 
to  atheists  would  simply  stop  all  argument;  for  who 
would  engage  in  a  discussion,  the  first  condition  of  which 
implied   that  the   disputant  did  not  honestly  hold   the 


Secularism  and  Atheism.  5 

views  for  which  he  contended  ?  He  who  would  do  so 
would  receive  little  respect  from  others,  because  he  had 
none  for  himself.  If,  however,  the  phrase  is  simply 
employed  as  a  loose  expression  of  opposition  to  creeds, 
then  it  is  certainly  a  very  inaccurate  term,  inasmuch  as  it 
does  not  contain  even  a  hint  of  the  meaning  intended. 
In  any  case,  it  ought  not  to  be  difficult  to  convince  the 
extremest  unbeliever  that  free  thought  which  is  not  also 
true  thought  is  scarcely  a  thing  to  boast  about.  The 
man  who,  in  the  sphere  of  understanding,  would  choose 
to  ignore  the  laws  of  intellect,  who,  in  the  sphere  ot 
conscience,  would  choose  to  be  blind  to  moral  law,  and 
this  in  order  that  he  might  boast  of  being  a  free  thinker, 
would  only  deserve  unrelenting  and  utter  contempt. 
Hear  the  words  of  one  of  your  own  leaders,  who,  though 
he  is  not  always  true  to  his  own  logic,  has  earned  the 
regard  to  be  heard  with  respect.  "  If  men  are  silent,  '* 
says  Mr.  Holyoake,  ''concerning  objects  and  princi- 
ples, it  is  said  they  have  none  j  and  it  is  impatiently 
asked  where  is  their  bond  of  union  ?  and  no  sooner  is  it 
explained,  than  they  are  told  it  is  very  unphilosophical  to 
think  of  setting  up  a  creed.  Where  the  alternatives  are 
thus  put  against  them,  they  should  take  their  own  course. 
Creeds  are  the  necessary  exponents  of  conviction.  The 
creedless  philosopher  is  out  on  the  sea  of  opinion 
without  compass  or  chart.  To  bind  yourself  for  the 
future  to  present  opinions  is  doubtless  unwise;  but  he 
who  has  enquired  to  any  purpose,  has  come  to  some 
conclusion,  affirmative,  negative,  or  neutral,  and  it  is 
the  province  of  a  creed  to  avow  the  actual  result  and  the 
consequent  conduct  intended  to  be  followed.  It  is  the 
vice  of  free -thinking  that  it  spreads  universal  uncertainty, 
and  assumes  right  and  wrong  to  be  so  protean  that  no 


6  Secularism  and  Atheism. 

man  can  tell  one  hour  what  opinion  he  shall  hold  thf 
next."  *  After  this,  we  ought  to  hear  no  more  about  the 
glory  of  free  thought. 

(4.)  Non-responsibility  for  belief  is  another  phrase  in 
reference  to  which  it  is  necessary  to  come  to  a  distinct  un 
derstanding.     Many  writers  on  the  Christian  side  have 
seen  the  consequences  of  beUef  or  unbelief  rising  in  such 
vastness  before  them  as  to  be  unable  to  see  that  this 
special  subject  was  but  a  part  of  the  larger  one  of  re- 
sponsibiUty  for  conduct.     Writers  on  the  other  side  have 
made  a  similar  mistake.     They  urge  with  evident  earnest- 
ness and  feeling  that  it  is  unfair  to  assert  responsibility 
for  behef,  inasmuch  as  whether  they  believe  or  believe 
not  is  dependent  on  evidence,  and  not  on  their  wills. 
But  is  it  true  that  the  will  has  nothing  to  do  with  belief? 
Let  us  take  as  an  example  the  evidence  of  Christianity. 
Let  us  assume  that  a  man's  behef  or  unbelief  must  de- 
pend  on   the   strength   or  weakness  of  that   evidence. 
What  then  ?     Does  it  follow  that  his  will  has  nothing  to 
do  with  his  belief?     Whether  and  how  he  shall  study 
the  evidence,  how  little  or  how  much  attention  he  shall 
give  to  the  subject,  with  what  calmness  and  fairness  he 
shall  inquire,  with  what  impartiality  and  honour  he  shall 
draw   his    conclusions,   depends   largely  upon   his  will, 
and  merits  praise  or  blame  accordingly.     Now  no  one 
can  doubt  that  belief  or  unbelief  is  dependent,  not  only 
on  evidence,  but  on  how  the  evidence  is  studied.     To 
this  extent  then  a  man  is  clearly  responsible,  to  the  ex- 
tent in  which  his  belief  is  affected  by  the  way  he  studies. 
It  is  manifest,  therefore,  that  a  man  who  has  not  taken 
and  will  not  take  the  trouble  to  examine  the  evidence,  or 
who  does  not  examine  fairly,  has  no  right  to  plead  that 
*  Logic  of  Facts,  p.  82. 


Secularism  and  Atheism.  7 

belief  is  dependent  on  evidence  as  a  reason  for  unbelief. 
For  in  his  case  the  evidence  has  not  produced  the  un- 
belief, but  his  unbelief  has  produced  his  unwillingness  to 
examine  the  evidence.  If,  however,  a  man  does  not 
admit  responsibility  in  any  sense,  not  to  himself,  or  to 
his  fellow-man,  or  to  God,  it  is  necessary  to  meet  him  on 
another  ground,  if  indeed  such  a  man  could  be  worthy 
to  be  met  at  all.  For  a  man  cannot  deny  responsibility 
in  every  sense,  without  becoming  practically  an  outlaw, 
with  whom  society  in  self-defence  can  hold  no  terms. 
But  they  who  say  that  a  man  is  not  responsible  for  be 
lief  do  tacitly  admit  that  he  is  responsible  for  something  ; 
otherwise  they  would  deny  responsibiHty  altogether,  and 
not  simply  for  belief.  Now  we  have  seen  that  if  a  man  is 
responsible  at  all,  he  is  responsible  for  the  way  in  which 
he  treats  the  evidence.  And  until  he  not  only  examines 
the  evidence,  but  examines  it  honestly  and  with  due  care, 
it  is  useless  to  say  he  is  not  responsible  for  his  unbelief. 

(5.)  There  is  a  similar  plea  sometimes  put  in  the  phrase 
"It  does  not  matter  what  a  man  believes  if  he  is  only 
sincere."  This  plea  does  at  least  admit  the  possibility 
of  the  unbeliever  not  being  sincere  in  his  arguments 
against  religion;  and  implies  that  his  insincerity  will 
matter  a  great  deal  to  him.  But  is  it  true,  as  a  matter  of 
fact,  that  in  the  case  of  a  man  who  is  sincere,  his  beliefs 
are  of  no  consequence  ?  Certainly  beliefs  are  of  im- 
mense importance  in  the  political  life  of  a  nation. 
Whether  Englishmen  believe  in  this  or  that  form  of 
Government,  or  in  any  Government  at  all,  makes  con- 
siderable difference  to  our  national  and  individual  safety 
and  progress.  We  often  hear  complaints  made,  and 
justly  made,  against  persecution  and  persecutors.  But 
persecutions  have  often  been  the  result  of  certain  beliefs 


8  Secularism  and  Atheism. 

of  sincere  men.  If  then,  in  such  cases,  men  suffer  from 
persecution,  they  ought  not,  on  this  principle,  to  com- 
plain, seeing  that  it  does  not  matter  what  a  man  believes 
if  he  is  only  sincere.  But  you  will  say  that  the  principle 
does  not  apply  to  this  life,  only  to  the  future.  Yet  if  it 
work  badly  here,  why  should  it  be  supposed  to  work  well 
there?  And  sincerity  no  more  saves  a  man  from  the 
effects  on  himself  of  wrong-doing,  than  it  saves  others 
from  those  effects ;  nor  is  it  less  blamable,  as  a  principle, 
when  he  himself  suffers,  than  when  he  makes  others 
suffer.  A  sincere  man  may  be  ignorant,  or  infatuated,  or 
prejudiced.  Where  it  was  within  a  man's  power  to  know, 
to  be  sober-minded,  to  look  fairly  at  a  question,  does  not 
ignorance,  infatuation,  prejudice,  deserve  blame?  Will 
sincerity  keep  a  man  well  who  breaks  the  laws  of  health  ? 
Will  sincerity  make  the  man  wise  who  ignores  the  laws 
of  understanding?  Will  sincerity  make  the  man  good 
who  trusts  to  instinct  without  learning  the  simple  laws 
that  ought  to  govern  moral  effort?  And  yet  the  sin- 
lessness  of  the  sincere  man  is  a  doctrine  popular  with 
many  atheists,  though  Mr.  Holyoake  has  seen  it  morally 
necessary  to  abandon  the  dogma.  He  now  holds  that 
sincerity,  as  such,  is  not  sufficient.  It  must  be  well- 
informed  sincerity.  He  says :  "  If  a  man  is  to  justify 
his  sincerity  to  his  conscience,  if  his  sincerity  is  to  be 
without  sin,  then  he  must  make  up  his  mind ;  he  must 
know  all  about  the  subject  he  can  know  when  he  pro- 
fesses to  be  sinless  upon  it.  I  use  the  term  to  put  an 
end  to  that  common-place  sincerity  which  so  many 
people  have,  which  is  ignorant  sincerity,  which  is  cruel 
and  blind,  notwithstanding  it  is  sincere,  because  it  is 
ignorant.  A  man  has  no  right  to  say.  My  sincerity  shall 
be  respected,  until  he  has  taken  care  not  to  have  an 


Secularism  and  Atheism.  9 

ignorant  and  narrow  and  prejudiced  sincerity ;  he  is 
bound  to  have  as  enlarged  a  sincerity  as  he  possibly  can 
compass."  *  I  am  very  glad  that  Mr.  Holyoake  has  come 
to  see  and  to  say  this  truth  so  clearly ;  but  it  is  a  mani- 
fest abandonment  of  the  old  plea,  that  if  a  man  is  only 
sincere  he  can  have  nothing  to  dread  in  another  world. 
If  sincerity  may  be  cruel,  blind,  ignorant,  sinful,  clearly 
it  cannot  save  a  man  from  the  natural  consequences  of 
cruelty,  blindness,  ignorance,  sin,  either  in  this  world  or 
in  the  world  to  come. 

(6.)  The  wide  spread  of  scepticism  is  another  phrase 
we  often  hear.  But  the  question  is,  what  scepticism  ? 
If  positive  unbelief  is  intended,  I  for  one  do  not  believe 
that  it  is  widely  spread.  But  if  by  scepticism  is  meant 
uncertainty  which  waits  to  become  certainty,  on  one  side 
Or  another,  in  relation  to  several  theological  subjects, 
then  I  have  no  doubt  that  ours  is  a  very  sceptical  age 
indeed.  It  is  not  my  province  to-night  to  plead  for  this 
or  that  special  theology,  but  I  know  that  the  Christian 
Faith,  as  distinguished  from  the  additions  or  mutilations 
of  men,  is  able  to  bear  the  strongest  light  which  this  age 
can  turn  upon  it.  But  as  to  whether  atheism  is  increasing 
in  the  country  there  can  be  few  better  witnesses  than  Mr. 
Holyoake.  And  I  am  sure  his  testimony  ought  to  con- 
vince you.  He  says  :  "  Mr.  Bradlaugh  wanders  through 
his  land,  proclaiming  the  principles  of  secularism  as 
though  they  were  atheism,  and  arguing  with  the  clergy. 
Why,  when  I  go  now  to  Glasgow,  to  Huddersfield,  to 
Liverpool,  to  Manchester,  I  find  the  secularists  there 
unadvanced  in  position.  Even  in  Northampton,  which 
Mr.  Bradlaugh  knows,  I  found  them  lately  meeting  on 
the  second  floor  of  a  public-house  where  I  found  them 
*  Debate  with  Mr.  Bradlaugh,  p.  22. 


10  Secularism  and  Atheism. 

twenty  or  twenty-five  years  ago.  In  Glasgow  they  are  in 
the  same  second-rate  position  they  were  in  twenty-five 
or  thirty  years  ago.  What  have  we  been  doing  ?  Does 
not  this  show  an  obsolete  poUcy  ?  Ranters,  Muggletonians, 
Mormons,  and  men  of  their  stamp  are  superior  to  acting 
so.  Any  party  in  the  present  state  of  opinion  in  the  world 
could  with  thought  have  done  more.  The  most  ordinary 
sects  build  or  hire  temples  and  other  places  where  their 
people  decently  meet.  Mr.  Bradlaugh,  with  all  his  zeal 
and  appeals,  finds  to-day  that  all  London  can  do  is  to  put 
up  this  kind  of  place  in  which  we  now  meet  opposite  a 
lunatic  asylum,  where  people,  so  the  enemy  says,  naturally 
expect  to  find  us."* 

II.  I  now  proceed  to  speak  of  Secularism  in  the  non- 
Christian  sense  in  which  the  word  is  employed  by  Mr. 
Holyoake  and  Mr.  Bradlaugh,  and  of  atheism  itself. 

(i.)  Secularism,  in  its  proper  meaning,  as  indicating 
the  just  principles,  laws,  and  objects  of  the  present  life,  is 
an  appropriate  and  even  noble  word;  but  as  used  by 
those  who  claim  it  as  their  distinctive  title,  as  a  con- 
venient intimation  of  unbelief  in  God  and  in  a  future  life, 
it  is  one  of  the  vaguest  terms  in  our  language.  It  is  true 
that  he  who  thoughtfully  studies  and  obeys  the  laws  of 
the  present  life,  even  though  he  think  not  that  those 
laws  extend  further,  is  a  secularist.  But  in  a  profounder 
sense,  he  also  is  a  secularist  who  regards  those  laws  which 
govern  him  now  as  being  essentially  the  same  as  those 
which  will  govern  him  hereafter,  as  laws  of  a  life  which 
never  ceases  to  be  life.  Indeed,  while  a  true  atheist 
may  be  a  secularist,  a  true  theist  must  be  a  secularist ; 
that  is  to  say,  it  is  in  the  very  essence  of  his  theism  to  live 
as  nobly,  as  rightly,  as  wisely  as  he  can  in  this  present 
*  Debate  with  Mr.  Bradlaugh,  p.  72. 


Secularism  and  Atheism,  II 

• 
life.  Secularism  is  not  necessarily  involved  in  atheism, 
but  it  is  necessarily  involved  in  theism.  A  genuine 
atheist,  as  an  atheist,  may  not  choose  to  trouble  himself 
about  the  present  any  more  than  about  the  future  life ;  a 
genuine  theist,  as  a  theist,  must  study  to  live  well  now, 
if  he  would  not  lose  both  present  and  future  life.  We 
shall  now  be  able  to  examine  the  system  associated  with 
the  name  of  Mr.  Holyoake,  and  ascertain  whether  it  pos- 
sesses anything,  as  peculiar  to  its  author,  deserving  the 
name  of  secularism. 

(2.)  The  following  are  the  five  articles  of  Mr.  Holy- 
oake's  creed,  i.  "  Secularism  maintains  the  sufficiency 
of  secular  reason  for  guidance  in  human  duties."  This 
principle,  as  being  the  most  important,  and  as  being  held 
by  all  classes  of  atheistic  secularists,  I  purpose  to  examine 
towards  the  close  of  my  lecture.  2.  "  The  adequacy  of 
the  utilitarian  rule  which  makes  the  good  of  others  the 
rule  of  duty."  On  this  I  shall  make  some  remarks  pre- 
sently. 3.  "  That  the  duty  nearest  at  hand,  and  most 
reliable  in  results,  is  the  use  of  material  means  tempered 
by  human  sympathy  for  the  attainment  of  social  improve- 
ment." On  this  also  I  have  some  remarks  to  make. 
4.  "The  sinl^ness  of  well-informed  sincerity."  On 
this  I  have  already  commented  at  some  length.*  5.  "  That 
the  sign  And  condition  of  such  sincerity  are  free-thought, 
expository  speech,  the  practice  of  personal  conviction 
within  the  limits  of  neither  outraging  nor  harming  others."1 
Of  this  I  have  also  spoken.  %  Now,  dealing  for  the  pre- 
sent with  these  principles  as  a  whole,  they  seem  at  first 
glance  to  contain  very  little  objectionable  matter;  very 

*  I.  (4),  (5),  p.  6,  etc. 

+  Debate  with  Mr.  Bradlaugh,  p.  4. 

:;:  I.  (2),  (3),  (4),  (5),  p.  4,  etc.  ' 


12  Secularism  and  Atheism. 

little  which  might  not  harmonize  with  the  convictions  of 
a  theist.     But  examine  them  closely,  and  you  with  find 
that  so  far  as  they  are  not  atheistic  they  are  in  no  wise 
peculiar  to  Mr.  Holyoake  and  his  followers ;  and  that  so 
far  as  they  are  atheistic  they  are  in  no  true  sense  secular. 
Besides,  I  notice  that  even  atheists  might  be  tempted 
to  doubt  their  value  on  some  points,  and  to  question 
whether  they  did  not  admit  too  much.     The  third  prin- 
ciple speaks  of  material  means.     If  what  we  call  mind 
be  material,  if  love,  thought,  faith,  conscience,  be  func- 
tions or  qualities  of  a  material  organization,  then   no 
doubt  material  means  are  not  simply  the  best,  but  they 
are  the   only  means   we   can   employ.     Mr.    Holyoake 
would  include  all  available  science  in  the  means  to  be 
employed  for  social  improvement ;   and  so  also  would 
Christian  secularism,  without  implying  that  there  are  no 
means  not  material.     But  this  principle  also  speaks  of  a 
duty  nearest  at  hand  and  most  reliable  in  its  result.   What 
does  this  mean  ?    Are  there  other  duties  not  so  near  at 
hand?    other   results    not  so  reliable?     Is  this  an  im- 
plicit acknowledgment  that  there  may  be  a  God,  whose 
will  may  be  known  and  ought  to  be  done  ?     But  if  so,  it 
is  preposterous  to  speak  of  duties  not  sa*  near  at  hand. 
All  duties,  just  in  so  far  as  they  are  duties,  are  close  at 
hand.      Why,  too,  is  the  duty   of  employing  material 
means  most  reliable  in  results,  unless  it  is  admitted  that 
there  are  also  spiritual  means  whose  results  are  not  so 
reliable  ?     But  if  so,  the  spiritual  means  should,  in  their 
own  province,  be  as  much  employed  as  material  means  in 
theirs.     Yet  if  this  be  true,  to  exalt  material  means  at  the 
expense  of  spiritual,  is  to  treat  the  thought  of  God  in  a 
way  far  more  offensive  than  actual  atheism.     And  this 
would  render  it  impossible  for  any  conscientious  th-.istic 


Secularism  and  Atheism.  13 

secularist  to  be  a  member  of  a  society  having  such  an 
article  in  its  creed.  But  if  it  is  intended  to  express  in- 
difference to  or  unbelief  in  God,  then  for  this  reason  also 
no  theist  could  have  anything  to  do  with  such  a  society. 
It  appears  then  that  this  principle  has  nothing  peculiar 
to  Mr.  Holyoake's  position  but  a  doubtful  atheism. 
Then  the  second  principle  would  make  the  good  of 
others  the  law  of  duty.  Now  one  would  expect  a  fair 
rule  of  duty  to  include  the  right  treatment  of  our- 
selves as  of  others  \  and  therefore  this  rule  is  not  ade- 
quate. Again,  it  is  a  question  whether  the  utilitarian 
rule  does  make  the  good  of  others  the  law  of  duty; 
whether  at  the  best  the  "good"  it  would  supply  ought 
not  rather  to  be  rendered  "goods,"  whether  therefore  it  is 
not  simply  a  commercial  rule,  and  not  a  moral  law.  But 
even  granting  that  it  is  moral,  this  rule  of  utility  is  not 
sufficient;  for  before  you  begin  to  do  good  you  must  find 
out  what  good  is.  But  then  it  is  said  this  can  only  be 
known  by  experience,  so  that  you  must  act  for  some 
time  without  morality  in  order  to  learn  what  morality  is. 
Again,  you  ought  to  do  good  to  all  men,  or  at  least  to 
the  greatest  number.  But  you  cannot  do  this  until  you 
find  out  what  the  greatest  number  needs.  Now  as  the 
greatest  number  consists  of  some  hundreds  of  millions  of 
human  beings,  you  would  probably  be  a  considerable  age 
before  you  began  to  be  moral.  So  far  is  this  rule,  con- 
sidered in  itself,  from  being  adequate.  It  has,  how- 
ever, this  use.  It  points  out  most  clearly  the  need 
of  revelation  as  a  moral  guide.  For,  assuming  that  the 
good  of  others  is  to  be  the  law  of  duty,  then  who  so  well 
as  God  can  know  what  that  good  is  ?  And  if  the  "  others" 
whose  good  we  are  to  study  means  all  others,  then  who 
but  God  can  tell  us  what  all  need  ?    So  then  utilitarianism, 


14  Secularism  and  Atheism. 

which  Mr.  Holyoake  calls  secular,  and  Mr.   Bradlaugh 
atheistic,  is  itself  a  witness  for  the  need  of  revelation. 

(3.)  Mr.  Holyoake  has  striven  hard  to  establish  a 
non-Christian  secularism,  that  should  assert  nothing 
about  God.  With  consummate  tact,  with  great  earnest- 
ness, he  has  endeavoured  to  persuade  all  who  would 
listen  that  there  might  be  a  secularism  which  was  neither 
theistic  nor  atheistic.  Had  Mr.  Holyoake  contented 
himself  with  saying  that  any  two  men  ought  to  be  able 
to  work  together  without  asking  each  other  any  questions 
about  their  theological  views,  he  would  have  asserted  a 
principle  of  humanity  which  appears  to  me  a  very  im- 
portant and  very  Christian  one.  But  when  he  virtually 
says  to  the  theist.  In  your  secularism  ignore  your 
theism,  he  asks  him  to  do  what  no  theist  could  do 
without  becoming  unworthy  of  the  name  of  man.  No 
true  theist  dare,  nor  if  he  dare  would  he  choose,  to 
ignore  the  idea  of  God.  And  though  Mr.  Holyoake 
dreamed  a  noble  dream  which  he  called  secularism,  yet 
its  interpretation  has  always  been  atheism.  Of  positive 
teaching  his  system  gives  us  nothing  that  is  not  the 
common  inheritance  of  man ;  extract  this,  and  atheism 
only  is  left.  And  it  is  so  far  true  that  man  needs  no 
atheism  to  work  for  human  good,  that  Christian  secu- 
larism is  the  only  genuine  secularism  this  country  has 
known.  We  have  been  accused  justly  of  the  guilt  ot 
slavery,  but  it  was  the  quickened  Christian  conscience  of 
England  that  abolished  slavery.  We  have  been  accused 
justly  of  intolerance,  bigotry,  and  cruel  wrong  in  days 
of  persecution ;  but  it  is  just  because  Christianity  has 
stronger  hold  on  our  passions  that  we  are  better  now. 
We  have  been  accused  justly  of  indifference  to  the 
state  of  the  poor ;  but  it  was  the  Christian  spirit  in  the 


Secularism  and  Atheism.  15 

heart  of  the  nation  that  abolished  the  corn  monopoly, 
that  built  and  now  supports  our  hospitals ;  that  poured 
the  wealth  of  England  into  Lancashire  in  the  cotton 
famine,  as  it  did  years  before,  when  food  failed,  into 
Ireland.  I  know  there  is  yet  a  tremendous  work  to  be 
done.  The  agricultural  labourer  is  ill-paid,  ill-fed,  ill- 
clothed,  ill-housed ;  let  us  with  all  heartiness  help  him 
to  improve  his  condition.  The  poor  in  our  great  towns 
are  suffering  fearfully  from  drunkenness  and  impro- 
vidence, we  ought  to  help  them  to  be  sober  and  prudent. 
The  great  corporations  are  dull,  and  sluggish,  and 
careless  about  the  sanitary  condition  of  the  masses; 
we  can  rouse  them  to  activity  by  a  ceaseless  and  fearless 
criticism.  Parliament  does  not  always  understand  work- 
ing men's  questions ;  it  is  but  fair  to  educate  public 
opinion  until  members  shall  be  returned  who  do  under- 
stand such  questions.  The  people  are  liable  to  suffer 
from  combinations  that  bring  evil  only;  it  is  right  to 
teach  them  the  secret  of  co-operation.  Bad  passions 
have  flamed  up  between  employer  and  employed;  we 
ought  to  create  a  wise  public  opinion  that  will  rule 
both.  These  are  only  broken  hints  of  the  manifold 
work  that  still  needs  to  be  done,  which  our  Christianity 
will  rouse  us  to  do.  Our  faults  are  of  ourselves ;  our 
virtues  are  of  our  faith ;  and  our  faith  will  yet  conquer 
our  faults. 

4.  I  now  examine  the  creed  of  Mr.  Bradlaugh  and  of 
those  who  hold  with  him.  i.  This  association  declares 
that  the  promotion  of  human  improvement  and  happi- 
ness is  the  highest  duty.  2.  That  the  theological 
teachings  of  the  world  have  been  most  powerfully 
obstructive  of  human  improvement  and  happiness; 
human  activity  being  guided  and    increased    by    the 


1 6  Secularism  and  Atheism. 

consciousness  of  the  facts  of  existence,  while  it  is  mis- 
guided and  impeded  in  the  most  mischievous  manner, 
when  the  intellect  is  warped  or  prostrated  by  childish 
and  absurd  superstition.  3.  That  in  order  to  promote 
effectually  the  improvement  and  happiness  of  mankind, 
every  individual  of  the  human  family  ought  to  be  well 
placed  and  well  instructed ;  and  all  who  are  of  a  suitable 
age  ought  to  be  usefully  employed  for  their  own  and  the 
general  good.  4.  That  human  employment  and  happi- 
ness cannot  be  effectually  promoted  without  civil  and 
religious  liberty,  and  that  therefore  it  is  the  duty  of  every 
individual, — the  duty  to  be  practically  recognised  by 
every  member  of  this  association, — to  actively  attack  all 
barriers  to  equal  freedom  of  thought  and  utterance  for 
all  upon  political  and  theological  subjects.*  Now,  before 
examining  these  four  points  in  detail,  I  have  some 
remarks  to  make  upon  them  as  a  whole.  They  are  the 
manifesto  of  a  certain  number  of  persons  caUing  them- 
selves the  National  Secular  Society.  They  assume  the 
name  (National),  not  because  they  are,  but  because  they 
wish  to  be.  These  principles  are  intended  io  take  the 
place  of  theology  as  soon  as  Mr.  Bradlaugh  and  his 
associates,  with  the  immense  broom  of  which  Mr. 
Holyoake  speaks,  shall  have  succeeded  in  sweeping  the 
world  clean  of  all  religious  conviction.  Now,  it  is  very 
important  to  know  how  Mr.  Bradlaugh  understands  his 
own  principles.  I  therefore  give  you  his  own  words. 
"Although  at  present  it  may  be  perfectly  true  that  all 
men  who  are  secularists  are  not  yet  atheists,  I  put  it 
to  you  as  also  perfectly  true  that,  in  my  opinion,  the 
logical  consequence  of  the  acceptance  of  Secularism 
must  be  that  the  man  gets  to  atheism  if  he  has  brains 
*  Newcastle  Debate,  p.  14. 


Secularism  and  Atheism.  17 

enough  to  comprehend."  *  From  this  passage  alone  it 
would  appear  as  if  Mr.  Bradlaugh  held  that  though 
secularism  itself  was  not  necessarily  atheism,  yet  it  was 
a  sort  of  inclined  plane,  conveniently  smooth,  upon 
which,  if  a  man  once  set  himself,  he  must  slide  down 
into  atheism,  unless  through  some  perversion  of  intellect 
he  were  induced  to  make  a  violent  effort,  and  stop  himself 
half-way.  But  six  months  later  Mr.  Bradlaugh  expressed 
his  views  in  much  stronger  language,  from  which  it 
appears  that  he  does  not  simply  think  that  secularism 
leads  to  atheism,  but  that  it  is  atheism  itself  His  exact 
words  are  :  **  Then  there  is  another  point  that  I  do  not 
know  that  I  need  trouble  to  discuss,  whether  secularism 
is  atheism  or  not,  because  I  think  it  is.  I  have  always 
said  so,  I  believe,  for  the  last  thirteen  years  of  my  life, 
whenever  I  have  had  an  opportunity  of  doing  so ;  and  it 
is  hardly  likely,  therefore,  that  I  should  come  here  to- 
night, without  any  reason  for  doing  so,  to  recant  all  my 
previous  convictions,  and  to  make  an  allegation  utterly 
inconsistent  with  all  my  previous  arguments.^'f  It  is  clear 
then  that  Mr.  Bradlaugh  does  not  dream  with  Mr. 
Holyoake  of  ^  Secular  Society,  which  should  include 
both  theists  and  atheists,  and  yet  exclude  both  theism 
and  atheism.  Mr.  Holyoake  failed  because  his  principles 
did,  when  fairly  examined,  involve  atheism  ;  Mr.  Brad- 
laugh avoids  that  difficulty  by  making  atheism  itself  the 
basis  of  co-operation  in  a  secular  society.  And  yet, 
when  Mr.  Bradlaugh  talks  of  the  secular  work  he  has 
done,  it  is  only  fair  to  let  him  know  that  if  he  has  not 
hindered  more  work  than  he  has  helped,  it  is  only 
because  the  people  refuse  to  believe  that  there  is  any 

*  Debate  with  Mr.  Holyoake,  p.  i6. 
+  Newcastle  Debate,  p.  13. 

2 


1 8  Secularism  and  Atheism. 

opposition  between  Christianity  and  secular  work.      You 
may  more  easily  persuade  the  people  to  abandon  secular 
work  than  to  abandon  their  belief  in  God ;  so  that  when 
Mr.  Bradlaugh  tells  ignorant  people  that  they  must  become 
atheists  before  they  can  do  secular  work,  he  has  small  right 
to  complain  if  the  work  should  not  be  done.  Happily,  they 
have  a  nobler  creed,  and  are  little  likely  to  be  moved  from 
it ;  and  therefore  go  on  with  their  Christian  secular  work, 
notwithstanding  that  Mr.    Bradlaugh    says   they   cannot 
do   it.     He   says   it  cannot  be  done  ;    they  answer  by 
doing  it.     But  it  is  very  curious  that  though  Mr.   Brad- 
laugh's  secularism  is   atheism,   yet   in  those   four  prin- 
ciples it  is  not  visible  at  the  first  glance.     It  is  concealed 
in   a  comer,   and   only   comes  out   when  dragged  out. 
It  is  not  to  be  found  in  the  fourth  principle ;  it  is  not 
visible  in  the  third ;  you  search  in  vain  for  it  in  the  first, 
it  is  only  hidden  behind  one  phrase  in  the  second.     And 
yet  it  is  confessed  that  this  secularism  is  atheism.      How 
then  is  it  that  we  have  here  four  principles  of  which  only 
one  contains  it  ?     Is  it  not  because  atheists  themselves 
feel  that  they  must  add  something  to  their  atheism,  before 
they  can  have  any  useful  principles  at  all  ?     Is  it  not  a 
tacit   confession  that  atheism,  as  such,  has  no  positive 
teaching  to  give  ?     One  little  phrase  belongs  to  atheists ; 
all  the  rest  are   common   property.     We    may  differ  in 
judgment  as  to  the  mode  in  which  they  are  to  be  carried 
out,  not  as  to  the  substance  of  the  principles  themselves. 
We  hold  that  the  promotion  of  human  improvement  and 
happiness  is  an  imperative  duty ;  and  if  we  do  not  call  it 
the  highest,  it  is  because  we  do  not  believe  in  setting  one 
duty  against  another,  each  being  in  its  own  place  and  in 
its  own  time  of  infinite  authority.       We  desire  every 
individual  of  the  human  family  to  be  well  placed  and  well 


Secularism  and  Atheism.  19 

instructed,  and  all  who  are  of  suitable  age  to  be  usefully- 
employed  for  their  own  and  the  general  good.  We  desire 
civil  and  religious  liberty ;  our  fathers  bled  for  it,  and  who 
amongst  us  would  not  do  the  same,  did  the  same 
necessity  arise  ?  There  are  barriers  to  be  attacked, 
barriers  of  pride  and  passion  and  prejudice,  remnants  of 
barbarism  to  be  removed ;  evils  still  in  our  constitution  ; 
blots  still  in  statute,  books  ;  sorrows  innumerable  among 
our  people.  In  the  n^oblest  Christian  secularism,  it  is  our 
duty — a  duty  pressing  upon  every  Christian — to  take  our 
place  and  do  our  share  of  the  work,  do  it  honestly,  ear- 
nestly, constantly,  adding  to  the  strong  tide  of  influence 
that  flows  through  successive  generations,  until  there  be 
no  evil  left  in  the  land.  it  appears  then  that  these 
four  principles,  except  the  phrase  about  the  theological 
teachings  of  the  world,  are  involved  in  the  very  heart  of 
theism,  and  are  in  no  sense  peculiar  to  the  so-called 
secular  society.     Atheism  alone  is  its  distinctive  mark. 

(5.)  But  what  is  atheism  ?  and  what  is  its  practical 
value  .^  I  need  hardly  tell  you  very  often  the  real  meaning 
of  the  word  has  been  forgotten  on  both  sides.  Just  as 
in  the  early  days  of  Christianity  those  who  did  not  believe 
in  the  heathen  gods  were  called  atheists  by  those  who 
did ;  so  too  many  Christians  have  given  the  name  atheists 
to  those  who  do  not  agree  with  them  in  their  conceptions 
of  God.  It  ought  to  be  unnecessary  to  explain  that  they 
only  ought  to  be  called  atheists  who  do  not  believe  in 
God  at  all.  An  infidel,  in  the  usual  sense  of  the  word, 
is  one  who  does  not  believe  in  Christianity,  a  theist  or  deist 
is  one  who  believes  in  a  personal  God,  without  necessarily 
accepting  the  common  conceptions  of  deity.  A  pantheist 
is  one  who  believes  that  all  is  God ;  an  atheist  who  be- 
lieves that   nothing   is  God,  or  beli^yes  not  that  any- 


20  Secularism  and  Atheism. 

thing  is  God.  So  also  on  the  other  side  there  is  a 
curious  misuse  of  the  word.  One  would  imagine  that 
in  the  proper  meaning  of  the  word  atheism,  for  which 
any  dictionary  may  be  consulted,  no  one  could  find 
anything  but  negative  force.  A  man  who  is  an  atheist 
may  be  more  than  an  atheist ;  for  he  may  be  a  workman, 
a  student  of  science,  a  politician,  and  so  on.  But  in  his 
character  as  an  atheist  all  that  he  is  may  be  put  into  the 
little  negative,  no.  When  he  becomes  a  positive  teacher, 
he  emerges  from  his  atheism,  and  leaves  it  behind ;  though 
when  he  has  finished  his  teaching  for  the  time,  he  may  gc 
back  into  it.  In  atheism,  as  atheism,  there  is  not  onlj 
no  science  ;  there  is  nothing,  except  two  or  three  words 
that  represent  merely  certain  states  of  mind.  The 
atheist's  vocabulary  is  confined  to  the  words  "  I  doubt,' 
"  I  do  not  know,"  or  "  I  deny."  Mr.  Holyoake  admits 
that  atheism,  as  such,  gives  you  no  system  of  truth,  nc 
scheme  of  morality.  But  Mr.  Bradlaugh's  vigorous  ima- 
gination scorns  such  narrow  bounds.  Never  mind  the 
proper  meaning  of  the  word ;  it  shall  mean  whatever  I 
please.  This  is  what  Mr.  Bradlaugh's  method  implies. 
"  Atheism  properly  understood  " — that  is,  understood, 
not  according  to  the  Greek  language,  nor  according 
to  the  English  language,  nor  according  to  the  language 
of  common  sense,  but  according  as  Mr.  Bradlaugh 
is  determined  it  shall  mean — "is  in  no  sense  a  cold 
barren  negative ;  it  is,  on  the  contrary,  a  hearty,  truthful 
affirmation  of  all  truth."  What  a  modest,  what  a  remark- 
ably unassuming  claim  !  Atheism  identical  with  all  sci- 
ence !  Here  is  a  royal  road  to  learning  with  a  vengeance  ! 
Here  is  a  new  solution  of  the  educational  question ! 
Away  with  school  boards !  Away  with  school  rates  ! 
Only  let  the  people  cease  to  believe  in  God,  and  they 


Secularism  and  Atheism.  2t 

have  at  one  bound  the  "  affirmation  of  all  truth  ! "  After 
this  you  will  not  be  surprised  to  learn  that  Mr.  Bradlaugh 
says,  "  You  cannot  get  your  scheme  of  morality  without 
atheism."  To  which  it  is  enough  to  reply  with  Mr.  Holy- 
oake,  "  There  is  no  scheme  of  morality  in  it."  But  these 
modest  claims  of  Mr.  Bradlaugh  are  simply  idle  talk. 
Of  all  the  "isms"  of  the  day,  atheism  is  simply  that 
which  doubts  (though  a  simple  doubter  is  not  necessarily 
an  atheist),  denies,  or  professes  ignorance  of  the  existence 
of  God.  Whatever  its  negative  value,  it  has  no  pretensions 
to  be  considered  as  either  an  intellectual  or  a  moral  guide. 
Having  nothing  to  give,  it  gives  nothing. 

(6.)  But  it  is  sometimes  urged,  that  though  atheism  is 
not  science,  yet  it  is  necessary  to  give  up  belief  in  God  in 
order  to  learn  science.  Certainly  science  helps  us  to  get 
rid  of  false  and  unworthy  views  of  God  ;  but  I  have  yet 
to  learn  that  there  is  anything  in  the  nature  of  man  which 
requires  the  paralysis  of  his  faith,  before  he  can  exercise 
his  faculty  of  knowledge.  As  I  have  said  in  substance 
elsewhere,  science,  to  the  theist,  does  not  lose  its 
practical  value  because  it  has  also  a  spiritual  meaning. 
Chemistry,  anatomy,  physiology,  mechanics,  dynamics, 
pneumatics,  optics,  and  the  sciences  of  electricity  and 
heatj  are  not  the  less  practically  serviceable  to  the  theist 
because  he  also  deems  them  a  proof  of  the  varied  power 
and  wisdom  of  God.  Botany,  ranging  over  the  globe,  de- 
scribing all  vegetation  of  all  climes,  is  no  less  useful  because 
it  breathes  upward  to  heaven,  from  depths  of  leafy  shade, 
from  deepening  vales,  from  open  verdant  plains,  the 
fragrance  of  His  name  who  has  crowned  the  hills  with 
waving  forests,  gemmed  the  valleys  with  incense-breath- 
ing flowers,  and  filled  the  fields  with  the  gracious  harvest 
whose  grain  is  the  "  gold  of  God."    Zoology,  displaying 


^2  Secularism  and  Atheism. 

every  form  of  animal  life,  from  the  zoophyte  up  to  man, 
is  no  less  practically  serviceable  because.it  acknowledges 
Him  from  whom  the  life  of  both  is.  Geography, 
describing  the  whole  surface  of  the  globe,  is  no  less  valu- 
able to  the  merchant,  the  traveller,  the  sailor,  because  it 
testifies  how  excellent  is  the  name  of  the  Lord  in  all  the 
earth.  Geology  is  surely  not  less  instructive  because  it 
WTites  on  the  rocks  its  testimony  for  God.  And  astronomy, 
recording  the  movements  of  the  heavens,  with  star 
differing  from  star  in  glory,  is  no  less  beneficial  to  man 
because  it  is  also  to  the  theist  almost  a  revelation  of 
infinite  spiritual  intelligence  and  power.  The  truth  is, 
the  wise  theist  cannot  but  rejoice  in  true  science  ;  for  to 
him  true  science  is  of  God.  But  it  by  no  means  follows 
that  he  is  to  content  himself  with  science  alone.  He 
would  be  glad  and  rejoice  in  all  truth.  And  so  science, 
philosophy,  and  theology,  derived  from  nature,  man, 
and  revelation,  are  to  him  a  trinity  of  thought,  in  which 
none  is  opposed  to  the  other,  but  in  fact  constitute  one 
manifestation  of  the  Infinite  Personal  Spirit  in  whom  "  we 
live,  and  move,  and  have  our  being."  A  true  theism 
welcomes  all  knowledge ;  but  atheism,  throwing  off  all 
disguises,  must  stand  forth  in  its  own  nakedness  as  either 
confessed  ignorance  of  the  subject,  or  as  the  simple 
negative  of  the  proposition.  There  is  a  God. 

(7.)  And  yet,  curiously  enough,  almost  all  atheists  shrink 
from  the  logic  of  their  own  position.  Instead  of  being 
told  there  is  no  God,  we  are  informed  that  the  popular 
conceptions  of  Deity  are  contradictory  and  absurd.  If 
this  were  true,  it  were  yet  nothing  to  the  purpose.  So 
wide  spread  theologicar  views  are  more  likely  to  have 
'some  basis  in  fact  than  none.  But  whether  popular 
theories  be  true  or  no,  is  not  the  question.  The 
atheist,  while  he  keeps  to  the  logic  of  his  position,  is 


Secularism  and  Atheism,  23 

necessarily  opposed  to  every  idea  of  God.  We  are 
sometimes  told,  as  by  Mr.  Bradlaugh,  that  every  child  is 
born  an  atheist.  If  that  were  true,  it  would  prove  nothing 
in  favour  of  atheism.  For  on  this  assumption  atheism 
must  have  existed  before  theism.  How  powerful  then 
must  be  the  evidence  which  has  changed  the  convictions 
of  the  human  race  !  If  all  children  are  atheists,  very  few 
men  are.  Is  not  atheism  then  childish  ?  "  When  I  was 
a  child,  I  thought  as  a  child,  I  spake  as  a  child,  I  under- 
stood as  a  child ;  but  when  I  became  a  man,  I  put  away 
childish  things."  Possibly  you  may  listen  to  Professor 
Newman,  who  says,  "  The  sole  question  between  us  and 
the  atheist  is  whether  there  are  or  are  not  marks  in  the 
universe  of  superior  mind.  What  are  the  qualities,  the 
power,  the  purposes  of  the  spirit  whom  we  discern,  and 
whether  there  are  many  such  spirits,  are  questions  for 
theists  among  themselves,  with  which  the  atheist,  while 
he  keeps  to  his  argument,  has  nothing  to  do."* 

(8.)  I  have  now  examined  in  some  detail  the  claims  of 
atheistic  secularism,  and  given  my  reasons  for  saying  that 
except  its  hostility  to  theism  it  has  nothing  to  give  which 
we  do  not  already  possess.  But  at  the  same  time  let  it 
not  be  supposed  that  I  am  casting  any  reflections  upon 
the  capacity  or  character  of  men  who  have  become 
atheists.  Our  judgments  of  their  capacity  must  be  de- 
termined by  the  powers  they  manifest ;  our  opinions  of 
their  character  by  the  uprightness  of  their  conduct.  All 
that  I  urge  is  urged  against  atheistic  secularism  itself. 
But  there  is  one  principle,  the  sufficieficy  of  secular 
reason^  with  which  I  have  yet  to  deal,  and  which,  on  ac- 
count of  its  importance,  I  reserved  to  the  last.  "  Secu- 
larism  maintains  the  sufficiency  of  secular  reason   for 

*  Causes  of  Atheism,  p.  21. 


24  Secularism  ajtd  Atheism. 

guidance  in  human  duties."  But  the  question  is,  what 
secularism  ?  Some  hold  the  sufficiency  of  the  reason 
who  are  not  atheistic,  though  they  do  not  believe  in 
revelation.  But  then  they  speak  simply  of  reason, 
without  the  distinctive  word  secular.  Mr.  Holyoake 
will  hardly  grant  that  there  is  any  reason  not  secular ; 
for  then  it  would  be  natural  to  suppose  that  the  non- 
secular  reason  had  a  non-secular  sphere  of  its  own ; 
and  this  would  be  giving  up  his  position.  Neither, 
I  suppose,  will  it  be  admitted  that  there  are  duties 
not  human ;  though  I  am  not  sure  that  Mr.  Holyoake 
does  not  imply  a  possibility  of  duties  relating  to 
God  rather  than  man.  But  certainly  these  phrases, 
secular  reason  and  human  duties,  seem  to  admit  that 
there  may  be  a  God  in  reference  to  whom  faith  be- 
comes a  Divine  reason,  and  towards  whom  Divine  duties 
may  be  performed.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  it  were  true 
that  there  is  no  God,  no  immortality,  then  all  our 
thoughts,  passions,  purposes,  life,  can  only  have  re- 
ference to  this  present  world ;  they  cannot  have  refer- 
ence to  God,  if  God  exist  not ;  they  cannot  have 
reference  to  future  life,  if  no  such  life  can  be.  Not 
only  on  this  shewing  is  secular  reason  the  only  reason 
we  have,  but  our  imagination,  conscience,  and  faith  are 
also  secular,  and  secular  only.  But  if  so,  what  is 
meant  by  duties  ?  Is  there  in  man  a  sense  of  obligation 
to  do  certain  things,  to  leave  certain  other  things  un- 
done? Is  this  sense  of  obligation  natural  and  constitu- 
tional ?  If  so,  does  it  not  point  in  the  direction  of  a 
moral  Creator  ?  But  is  conscience  simply  an  impression 
which  circumstances  make  on  the  mind  ?  In  that  case 
would  it  not  be  reasonable  to  say  that  there  are  no 
duties,  or  that  what  we  call  such  mean  only  that  there 


Secularism  and  Atheism.  25 

» 

are  actions  which  society  compels  us  to  perform  ?  But 
then  why  talk  of  morality  at  all  ?  I  might  urge  these  and 
other  questions  of  a  similar  kind.  But  I  only  wish,  at 
present,  to  bring  before  you  the  truth  that  if  the  atheist's 
position  be  right — that  there  is  no  God,  no  immortality — 
then  it  is  absurd  to  make  any  distinction  between  secular 
and  non-secular,  since  in  that  case  we  have  nothing  but 
the  secular.  Let  it  then  be  granted,  for  the  sake  of 
argument,  that  the  atheistic  secularist  is  right ;  that  there 
is  no  God ;  that  there  will  be  for  us  no  future  life ;  let 
this  be  granted :  let  it  equally  be  granted  that  there 
never  has  been  a  God ;  that  man  never  has  found  any 
life  after  death ;  then  it  must  follow  that  men  have  not 
now,  that  men  never  had,  anything  but  secularism.  But 
this  secularism  excludes  the  supernatural ;  it  is  therefore 
atheistic ;  and  so  there  never  has  been  anything  in  the 
world  but  atheistic  secularism.  Now,  during  the  long 
period  man  has  existed  on  the  globe,  there  have  come 
into  being  a  great  many  theologies.  On  the  assumption 
that  there  is  no  God,  no  immortality,  these  theologies 
must  have  been  invented  by  atheistic  secularists.  But 
you  say  that  they  are  the  offspring  of  the  imagination 
and  faith.  But  if  there  be  no  God,  no  immortality,  are 
not  the  imagination  and  faith  as  truly  atheistic  and  secu- 
lar as  the  reason  itself?  And  thus  the  atheistic-secular 
imagination  and  faith  war  with  the  atheistic-secular 
reason.  But  even  the  reason  itself  cannot  escape.  No 
system  could  exist  without  some  help  from  the  reason. 
The  imagination  may  be  the  chief  power  at  work ;  but  if 
there  be  a  system  at  all,  reason  must  have  been  at  work 
to  produce  the  arrangement  indispensable  to  a  system. 
So  then  the  atheistic-secular  reason  must  itself  have  con- 
tributed to  the  very  theologies  it  now  condemns.     But 

J  ^        J?  THE 

flTFIVBRSiTT] 


26  Secularism  and  Atheism, 

you  say  it  is  impossible  that  atheism  should  have  in- 
vented theism.  Granted.  But  then  you  must  admit 
that  man  is  not  a  secular  being  only;  that  there  are 
capacities  in  his  nature  to  which  theology  is  adapted ; 
that  there  are  powers  in  his  nature  which  find  their 
exercise  in  theology.  In  other  words,  you  must  admit 
that  man  has  a  natural  tendency  towards,  a  natural 
capacity  for,  what  is  called  the  supernatural.  But  then 
is  it  not  reasonable  to  regard  the  capacity  for,  and 
tendency  towards,  the  supernatural  as  a  very  strong  pre- 
sumption that  there  is  a  God?  But  whether  this  last 
point  be  admitted  or  not,  the  capacity  and  tendency  do 
exist,  and  cannot  be  governed  by  atheistic-secular  reason. 
In  this  respect,  therefore,  what  is  called  secular  reason  is 
not  sufficient.  But  if  during  so  many  thousands  of  years 
the  atheistic-secular  reason  has  failed  to  control  imagina- 
tion and  faith,  it  is  too  late  to  tell  us  now  that  it  is 
sufficient  for  guidance  in  human  duties.  Once  more. 
It  is  inconceivable  that  theology  could  have  existed  so 
long,  in  every  part  of  the  world,  and  should  have  such 
powerful  hold  upon  the  world  now,  if  it  did  not  meet 
some  wants  in  human  nature  which  secularism,  even  in 
its  noblest  sense,  cannot  wholly  supply;  and  which  in 
its  atheistic  sense  it  cannot  supply  at  all.  Take  which 
horn  of  the  dilemma  you  will.  Either  man  is,  on  the 
assumption  that  there  is  no  God,  no  immortality,  an 
atheistic-secular  being  only,  in  which  case  atheistic 
secularism  is  responsible  for  all  the  theologies  that  exist , 
or  else  there  are  capacities,  powers,  and  wants  in  human 
nature  for  which  ath.istic  secularism  provides  no  exercise, 
and  can  find  no  supply. 

The  truth  is,  belief  in  God  has  proved  itself  in  all 
history  to  be  an  instinct  of  the  race.  When  it  becomes 
a  question  of  argument,  it  is  sufficient  to  prove  that  there 


Secularism  and  Atheism.  27 

is  as  much  evidence  of  the  existence  of  superior  mind  in 
the  universe  as  there  is  of  the  existence  of  mind  in  man. 
We   have   no  need  to  resort  for  proof  to  metaphysical 
subtleties.     The   evidence   rests,    as  Professor  Newman 
remarks,  on  the  common  perceptions  of  common  men ; 
and  metaphysical  argumentation  is  chiefly  useful,  not  so 
much  for  the  imparting  the  idea  to  those  who  say  they 
have  it  not,  as  for  the  refutation  of  objections,  and  the 
confirmation  of  faith  already  existing  upon  the  ground  of 
such  palpable  evidence  as  common  men  may  see.     It  is 
remarkable,  that  though  men  commonly  rebound  to  the 
utmost   extreme  when   they  rebound   at  all,   very   few 
atheists  are  prepared  to  say  plainly,  "  There  is  no  God." 
Mr.   Holyoake  simply  says,  as  Thomas  Cooper,  who  is 
now  a  Christian,  once  said,  **  I  do  not  say  there  is  no 
God,  but  this  I  say,  I  know  not."     Even  Mr.  Bradlaugh, 
who  is,  I  think,  the  most  reckless*  speaker  I  ever  heard, 
does  not  often,  if  ever,  go  so  far  as  that.     And  so,  when 
atheists  urge  that  God,  if  there  be  a  God,  ought  to  have 
made  the  evidence  so  clear  as  to  bfe  beyond  the  possi- 
bility  of  doubt,    I  answer  that   it  is  so  far  clear,  that 
they  do  not  venture  to  say  there  is  no  God.     And  for  the 
rest  it  is  not  unfair  to  reply,  that  if  doubt  were  impossible 
there  could  be  no  trial  or  discipline  of  faith.     In  conclu- 
sion, let  me  point  out  that,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  we  need 
more  than  reason,  more  even  than  theistic  reason.   Reason 
alone  has  never  governed,  and,  unless  man's  nature  be 
radically  changed,  never  will  govern  the  world.    The  chief 
difficulty  of  self-government  is   the   passions  ;  and  you 
might  as  well  try  to  control  a  wild  beast  with  a  silken 
thread  as  attempt  to  govern  the  passions  by  reason  alone. 
The  passions  can  be  governed,  but  only  by  means  of  the 

*  I  use  the  word,  not  insultingly,  but  in  its  strict  sense,  as  of  one 
who  * '  reckons  "  not  consequences. 


2S  Secularism  and  Atheism. 

passions.  A  man  cannot  become  good  by  the  simple 
suppression  of  all  passion.  If  the  evil  passion  be  strong, 
the  good  passion  must  become  stronger  to  control  it. 
Tell  men  that  a  given  action  is  unwise ;  if  their  hearts 
are  in  it,  they  will  do  it  still :  tell  them  it  is  wrong  ;  they 
will  do  it  still :  win  their  hearts  from  it ;  they  will  do  it 
no  more.  It  is  this  power  to  win  that  is  the  secret  of 
Christ's  influence  in  the  world.  You  do  not  confess  any 
religious  need  ;  but  at  least  consider.  Had  there  been, 
in  the  human  heart,  no  sense  of  perplexity,  there  had 
been  no  supplication  for  guidance.  Had  there  been 
no  longing  for  communion  with  the  unseen,  there  had 
been  no  prayer  for  the  manifestation  of  God.  Had 
there  been  no  consciousness  of  guilt,  there  had  been  no 
sacrifice  offered.  Had  there  been  no  feeling  of  moral 
weakness,  there  had  been  no  entreaty  for  help.  Christians 
say  their  hearts'  deepest  and  purest  longings  are  satisfied 
to  the  full  in  Christ.  You  alone  can  decide  whether 
you  also  can  rest  there.  At  least,  give  fair  play  to  the 
evidence  that  would  waken  your  belief  in  God  from  its 
long  slumber.  At  least,  consider  thoughtfully  the  claims  of 
Christianity.  I  pray  you  to  examine  its  evidences ;  giving 
no  more  weight  to  the  authority  of  writers  of  integrity 
and  learning  on  that  subject  than  their  integrity  and 
learning  deserve ;  just  as  you  would  with  scientific  men 
when  they  write  on  science.  And  I  think  it  is  not  un- 
reasonable to  say  you  ought  not  to  call  yourselves 
atheists,  or  secularists,  or  sceptics,  or  freethinkers,  or 
infidels,  until  you  are  sure  that  those  evidences  zxq  false. 
And  for  the  sake  of  others,  in  the  name  of  what  is 
honourable  and  fair  and  kind,  in  the  name  of  our 
common  humanity  itself,  I  venture  to  ask  you  not  to 
scatter,  among  the  ignorant,  infidel  dogmas,  until  you  are 
sure  that  those  dogmas  are  true. 


ON  HUMAN  RESPONSIBILITY. 


Rev.    a.     C.    ROW,    M.A., 

AUTHOR  OF  "the  NATURE  AND  EXTENT  OF  DIVINE  INSPIRATION,"  "THE  JESUS 

OF  THE  EVANGELISTS,"   "  THE  MORAL  TEACHING  OF  THE 

NEW    TESTAMENT,"  ETC. 


On  Hmnan  Responsibility, 


THE  questions,  Are  we  responsible  for  our  actions, 
and  if  responsible,  to  whom  are  we  responsible  ? 
or  are  our  actions  the  inevitable  results  of  'Certain  laws, 
over  which  we  can  exert  no  more  control  than  we  can 
over  the  law  of  gravitation  ?  are  of  the  most  surpassing 
interest.  The  whole  course  of  human  conduct  must  be 
profoundly  influenced,  in  proportion  as  we  view  ourselves 
responsible  to  a  Being  external  to  ourselves,  who  has 
the  right  to  enforce  obligation  on  us ;  or  as  we  consider 
ourselves  entitled  to  regulate  our  actions,  in  conformity 
with  our  idea  of  what  best  subserves  our  own  interests, 
irrespective  of  every  other  consideration. 

If  the  universal  testimony  of  mankind  possesses  any 
value  as  a  witness  to  truth,  it  proves  that  we  are  respon- 
sible for  our  actions.  It  has  been  asserted  that  there 
are  barbarous  tribes,  who  possess  no  idea  of  religion. 
Whether  it  be  so  or  not,  is  not  my  present  business  to 
inquire.  But  it  is  a  fact  that  even  the  most  savage 
members  of  our  race  admit  a  responsibility  of  some  sort. 
Men  nowhere  exist  but  in  a  state  of  society ;  but  the 
man  who  acted  on  the  principle,  I  will  do  whatever  I 
choose,  without  regard  to  any  other  person,  would  be 
incapable  of  being  a  member  of  either  family,  clan,  or 


32  On  Human  Responsibility. 

tribe.  It  follows  therefore  that  a  feeling  of  responsibility 
of  some  sort  is  a  necessary  part  of  our  mental  consti- 
tution. 

To  the  truth  of  human  responsibility,  the  whole 
structure  of  language  bears  a  clear  and  decisive  testi- 
mony. It  is  impossible  to  write  perspicuously  without 
using  words  which  contain  the  ideas  of  ought,  duty, 
and  obligation.  The  first  principles  of  grammar  prove 
that  mankind  have  ever  viewed  themselves  within  certain 
limits  to  have  been  voluntary  agents.  The  various 
moods  of  the  verbs  expressed  by  such  terms  as  "I 
might,"  "I  could,"  "I  would,"  "  I  should,"  "I  ought," 
and  ''let  me,"  imply  that  we  feel  that  we  have  a  power 
over  our  actions,  and  a  duty  in  the  performance  of  them. 
The  most  strenuous  deniers  of  human  freedom  are  com- 
pelled to  use  language  which  is  a  real  concession  of  the 
point  of  issue. 

I  rest  the  proof  of  our  responsibiHty  on  the  instinctive 
feelings  of  man.  From  them  we  cannot  divert  ourselves. 
It  is  easy  in  this,  as  well  as  in  many  other  questions,  to 
urge  intellectual  difficulties.  It  is  even  quite  possible  to 
produce  plausible  arguments  in  favour  of  necessity.  But 
after  a  man  may  have  persuaded  his  intellect  that  his 
actions  are  the  results  of  necessary  laws,  his  instinctive 
feelings  are  too  strong  for  his  logic.  Every  believer  in 
necessity  or  fate  is  compelled  to  act  on  the  principle  that 
freedom  is  true,  and  necessity  is  false.  If  a  tJiief  were 
to  urge  that  he  could  not  help  picking  our  pockets,  we 
should  at  once  treat  his  plea  as  unworthy  of  considera- 
tion. All  of  us  know  that  no  overwhelming  necessity 
constrained  him  to  do  so. 

My  next  point  is,  that  if  we  are  responsible,  we  must 
be  free  agents.     On  this  subject  a  number  of  fallacies 


On  Human  Responsibility.  33 

have  been  scattered  widely.  Before  I  can  advance  a 
step,  I  must  clear  them  away. 

First  then,  let  us  inquire  what  we  mean  when  we 
assert  that  men  are  free  agents ;  or  as  the  same  thing  is 
expressed  in  books,  when  we  affirm  the  doctrine  of  the 
freedom  of  the  will. 

When  we  assert  that  we  are  free  agents,  we  by  no 
means  intend  what  our  opponents  charge  us  with  affirm- 
ing, that  the  human  will  is  unfettered  by  conditions,  or 
that  a  man  can  call  up  any  feeling  he  pleases,  by  merely 
willing  to  do  so.  Still  less  do  we  assert  that  freedom  is 
the  same  thing  as  caprice.  On  the  contrary,  I  readily 
admit  that  our  freedom  is  limited  by  a  variety  of  con- 
ditions. We  are  only  able  to  love  a  thing  which  our 
moral  nature  feels  to  be  lovely.  What  it  pronounces  to 
be  right,  holy,  and  good,  no  bare  act  of  our  wills  can 
enable  us  to  think  wrong.  Also,  within  certain  limits, 
the  acts  of  our  intellects  are  necessary.  We  have  no 
freedom  to  choose  whether  we  will  believe  that  two  and 
two  make  four.  Yet,  notwithstanding  this,  ignorance  is 
sometimes  wilful,  and  therefore  voluntary.  Education, 
mental  constitution,  and  various  other  things,  exercise  a 
modifying  influence  on  our  responsibility. 

Nor  is  it  true  that  the  assertion  of  the  freedom  of  the 
will  is  equivalent  to  the  affirmation  that  we  are  capable 
of  acting  independently  of  reasons  or  motives.  A  being 
who  acts  without  reason,  renounces  his  rationality. 

What  then  do  we .  mean  when  we  affirm  that  we  are 
free  agents?  We  assert  that  we  possess  a  power  of 
choosing  between  the  various  reasons  which  present  them- 
selves to  our  minds  ;  that  these  do  not  exert  a  necessary 
influence  on  us  in  compelling  us  to  action ;  and  that 
motives  differ  from  each  other,  not  only  in  degree,  but  in 


34  On  Human  Responsibility. 

kind.  We  mean  therefore,  when  we  assert  that  we  are 
the  free  causes  of  our  own  actions,  that  we  are  capable 
of  exerting  a  rational  choice  on  the  various  motives 
presented  to  us,  that  we  can  select  those  which  our 
judgment  approves,  and  banish  the  rest  from  our  con- 
sideration. 

Secondly  :  the  next  point  of  my  proof  is,  that  where 
there  is  no  freedom  to  act  or  to  forbear,  there  can  be  no 
responsibility.  The  proof  of  this  rests  on  our  instinctive 
feeling  that  we  cannot  be  responsible  for  an  action  or  an 
event  over  which  we  can  exert  no  choice.  We  measure 
responsibility  by  the  praise  or  blame  which  we  attach  to 
actions.  We  are  incapable  of  praising  or  blaming  what 
we  cannot  help.  Who  ever  blamed  a  stone  for  falling, 
or  a  fire  for  burning  ?  It  is  true  that  when  a  stone  un- 
expectedly hurts  us,  under  the  influence  of  passion  we 
may  give  it  a  kick ;  but  the  moment  we  recover  our 
rational  self-possession  we  free  it  from  all  responsibility. 
In  one  word,  we  bestow  praise  or  blame  in  exact  propor- 
tion to  the  voluntariness  of  the  action. 

Let  us  take  another  illustration.  If  some  one  were  to 
hit  either  of  us  a  blow  on  the  face,  we  should  feel  indigna- 
tion at  the  person  who  inflicted  it.  But  if  another  were 
to  take  hold  of  his  hand,  and  use  it  as  an  instrument  for 
striking  us,  our  indignation  would  be  aroused,  not  at  the 
person  whose  arm  struck  us,  but  at  the  person  who  used 
it.  It  follows,  therefore,  that  voluntary  actions  only  are 
the  subjects  of  praise  or  blame,  and  involuntary  ones  of 
neither  \  and  that  responsibility  attaches  only  to  voluntary 
actions,  and  that  for  those  which  we  cannot  help  doing 
we  are  not  responsible. 

From  this  a  further  conclusion  follows,  that  for  an  act 
to  be  either  virtuous  or  vicious  it  must  be  voluntary.    An 


On  Hu7nan  Responsibility.  35 

action  which  we  cannot  help  doing  may  be  our  sad  mis- 
fortune— it  may  be  even  the  subject  of  our  regret — but  it 
cannot  be  our  crime.  It  is  necessary,  before  we  can 
feel  an  action  to  be  a  crime,  that  we  should  feel  the  con- 
sciousness that  we  might  have  avoided  doing  it,  if  we 
had  so  chosen.  For  actions  of  this  kind  only  are  we 
capable  of  feeling  repentance.  In  the  same  manner  its 
voluntariness  is  essential  to  the  virtuousness  of  an  action. 
No  amount  of  mere  utility  will  make  it  such.  Many 
things  may  be  highly  beneficial,  but  this  can  make  them 
neither  moral  nor  virtuous.  Thus  the  Thames  is  highly 
beneficial  to  the  inhabitants  of  London,  but  no  one  would 
think  of  praising  it  for  its  good  qualities.  But  when 
Captain  Knowles  stood  at  his  post  of  duty  at  the  sacrifice 
of  his  life,  we  at  once  recognize  the  grandeur  of  the  act, 
although  it  seems  to  have  been  attended  with  no  bene- 
ficial result.  Why  this  difference  between  the  cases? 
The  Thames  cannot  help  bestowing  the  benefits  which  it 
confers.  Captain  Knowles,  by  playing  the  coward,  or,  as 
some  might  say,  by  a  wise  self-love,  might  have  saved  his 
life.  But  he  voluntarily  chose  to  sacrifice  it  at  the  post 
of  duty.  Shall  we  affirm  the  position  of  the  atheist,  and 
say  that  the  Thames  will  continue  for  centuries  to  be 
the  unconscious  benefactor  of  the  inhabitants  of  London, 
and  that  all  which  was  great  and  noble  in  Captain  Knowles 
was  in  the  space  of  five  minutes  reduced  to  nothing  in 
the  ocean  waves  ?  Yet  such  must  be  the  result,  if  there 
be  no  God,  and  for  man  no  hereafter. 

It  follows,  therefore,  that  if  man  is  impelled  by  a  set  of 
impulses,  over  which  he  can  exert  no  choice,  his  actions 
can  possess  no  moral  quality.  The  highest  act  of  self- 
sacrifice,  the  most  unselfish  promptings  of  benevolence, 
the  most  disinterested  pursuit  of  truth,  would  have  no 


36  On  Human  Responsibility. 

more  value  than  the  falling  of  a  stone.  The  instinctive 
promptings  of  our  moral  nature  refuse  to  assign  to  the 
fall  of  a  stone  in  any  particular  way  the  idea  of  virtue. 
Why  is  this  ?  Because  the  stone  cannot  help  falling  as 
it  does.  It  might  have  fallen  within  half  an  inch  of 
our  heads,  and  by  this  we  may  have  escaped  the  fracture 
of  our  skulls.  The  atheist  would  say,  How  lucky  it  was 
that  it  fell  thus;  or  the  Christian,  By  what  a  merciful 
providence  have  I  escaped ;  but  neither  would  assign 
praise  or  virtue  to  the  stone.  When,  however,  we  con- 
template an  act  of  self-sacrifice,  like  that  of  Captain 
Knowles,  we  at  once  assign  to  it  the  highest  praise,  as 
pre-eminently  great  and  noble.  Why  the  difference? 
Because  what  Captain  Knowles  did  was  a  pure  act  of 
his  free  choice.  He  had  before  him  the  alternative  of 
following  the  dictates  of  his  icwer  nature,  and  thereby 
saving  his  life ;  but  he  chose  to  obey  the  higher  law 
of  duty,  and  to  sacrifice  life  in  obedience  to  its  demands. 
He  has  thus  realized  the  language  of  Jesus  Christ,  "He 
that  loveth  his  life  shall  lose  it,  but  he  that  hateth  his 
life  for  my  sake  shall  save  it  to  life  eternal." 

My  argument  therefore  stands  as  follows  :  Mankind 
have  asserted  with  unanimous  voice  that  certain  actions 
are  virtuous  and  vicious.  But  they  can  be  neither,  unless 
men  are  voluntary  agents.  All  voluntary  agency  in- 
volves responsibihty.  Men  therefore  feel  themselves  to 
be  responsible.  Its  modifications  I  will  consider  pre- 
sently. 

Thirdly :  it  is  an  essential  principle  in  the  teaching  of 
Atheism,  that  there  existed  nothing  in  the  original  state  of 
the  universe  but  matter,  force,  and  law,  and  that  neither 
mind  nor  rational  volition  had  in  it  any  existence,  or 
have  exerted  any  influence  in  its  formation.     Its  laws  ar© 


On  Human  Responsibility.  37 

necessary,  and  never  have  been  and  never  could  have  been 
otherwise  than  they  are.  How  then  have  these  been  able  to 
evolve  the  phenomena  of  moral  action  ?  How  can  neces- 
sary laws  evolve  the  power  of  choice,  the  essential  idea  of 
which  is  an  ability  to  act  independently  of  their  control? 
It  follows,  therefore,  if  man  is  the  necessary  outcome  of 
matter,  force,  and  law,  and  nothing  more,  that  he  must 
be  incapable  of  virtue  or  vice,  praise  or  blame.  But  we 
know  as  a  fact  that  he  is  capable  of  these.  Therefore 
we  infer  that  the  theory  that  man  has  originated  out  of 
these,  and  nothing  more,  must  be  untrue ;  and  that  there 
must  be  a  fallacy  either  in  the  premises  witli  which 
we  have  started,  or  in  the  inferences  which  we  have 
drawn  from  them. 

But  it  has  been  objected,  Our  powers  of  willing  and  of 
choice  are  only  the  results  of  particular  arrangements  of 
particles  of  matter,  and  that  the  brain  secretes  volition 
like  a  gland  does  saliva.  I  own  that  I  am  incapable  of 
comprehending  what  those  who  make  this  suggestion 
really  mean,  or  whether  they  mean  anything  at  all.  WTiat ! 
laws  which  cannot  be  otherwise  than  they  are,  matter 
devoid  of  sensation  and  of  thought,  and  force  devoid  of 
reason  and  of  will,  produce  by  their  self-evolution,  that 
which  is  capable  of  the  highest  acts  of  self-sacrifice  and 
all  the  phenomena  of  rational  will !  Gentlemen,  I  cannot 
really  bring  myself  to  believe  that  any  one  in  this  room 
seriously  thinks  that  the  timbers  which  compose  this  plat- 
form, by  any  varied  arrangement  of  their  particles,  by 
any  application  of  motional  forces,  or  by  the  blind 
action  of  dead  laws,  could  generate  a  being  who  would  be 
capable  of  sacrificing  his  life  to  save  our  own.  Intelli- 
gence must  originate  in  intelligence,  and  not  in  non- 
intelligence;   rational  acts   cannot  flow  from  unreason, 


38  On  Human  Responsibility, 

voluntary  actions  from  necessary  law,  or  self-sacrifice  from 
self-love. 

But  it  will  be  objected,  How  do  we  know  that  we 
are  voluntary  agents  ?  I  will  answer  this  question,  for  it 
is  a  reasonable  one. 

The  evidence  is  not  far  to  seek.  To  prove  it  requires 
no  long  course  of  logical  inferences.  Our  free  agency  is 
a  matter  of  our  direct  knowledge.  There  is  no  truth 
of  which  we  have  greater  certainty.  Our  consciousness 
directly  testifies  to  the  fact.  Whenever  we  act,  we  know 
that  it  is  in  our  power  either  to  do  it  or  to  forbear. 
Nine  hundred  and  ninety-nine  out  of  every  thousand  of 
mankind  habitually  assert  this  in  the  language  which  they 
use.  If  there  is  an  odd  one  in  a  thousand  who  does  not 
(which  I  greatly  doubt),  he  may  full  well  be  ranked  with 
those  who  are  born  either  blind  or  deaf.  Even  the  man 
who  by  the  aid  of  a  number  of  intellectual  puzzles  has 
persuaded  himself  into  a  belief  in  necessity,  acts  on  the 
principle  that  he  and  all  other  men  are  free. 

Let  me  illustrate  the  argument  by  an  example.  We 
are  each  of  us  certain  that  it  is  by  a  simple  act  of  our 
choice  that  we  have  come  here  this  evening.  We  are 
certain  that  after  each  step  on  the  road  it  was  in  our 
power  to  have  turned  back.  By  a  mere  exertion  of  my 
will  it  is  in  my  power  not  to  deliver  another  line  of  this 
lecture,  or  to  make  any  substitution  I  please  in  the  words 
and  sentences.  Each  of  you  feels  certain  that  it  entirely 
depends  on  yourselves,  whether  you  will  sit  here  and 
listen  another  minute.  There  are  no  facts  of  which  we 
are  more  certain  than  these.  The  table  here  before  me 
cannot  help  being  what  it  is,  and  doing  what  it  does. 
We  can.  In  this  power  a  man  differs  from  a  machine. 
A  machine  exerts  no  control  over  its  own  actions ;  we, 


On  Human  Responsibility.  39 

within  certain  clear  and  definite  limits,  can.  Certain  func- 
tions of  our  being  are  placed,  for  wise  purposes,  by  the 
great  Creator,  entirely  beyond  our  control,  as,  for  instance, 
those  on  which  our  lives  depend,  as  the  motion  of  our 
hearts,  etc.  Had  these  been  made  dependent  on  our 
wills,  the  functions  of  life  would  have  been  impossible. 
For  these  we  have  no  responsibiUty.  Not  so  with  our 
moral  actions. 

It  is  impossible  that  we  can  have  stronger  evidence 
of  anything  than  the  testimony  of  our  consciousness. 
When  I  see  a  thing  before  me,  I  am  as  certain  that  I 
see  it,  as  I  am  that  two  and  two  make  four.  How  do  I 
know  that  I  see  this  or  that  particular  thing  ?  I  have  the 
testimony  of  my  consciousness.  I  am  therefore  certain 
of  it.  I  have  a  similar  testimony  that  I  am  able  to  do 
or  to  forbear  doing  a  particular  action.  I  am  therefore 
certain  that  I  am  a  free  agent. 

I  am  asvare  that  a  number  of  objections  are  all  ready 
at  hand  to  be  adduced  against  the  fact  of  our  free  agency, 
and  the  consequent  doctrine  of  our  accountability  for 
our  actions,  in  the  same  way  as  they  can  be  adduced 
against  any  other  class  of  facts.  They  are  all  sets  of 
metaphysical  puzzles.  But  all  reasonings  which  contra- 
dict palpable  facts  must  be  fallacious  somewhere.  We 
accept  the  facts,  and  reject  the  reasonings.  I  will 
attempt  to  deal  with  some  of  these  difficulties. 

First :  it  has  been  urged  that  the  testimony  of  conscious- 
ness to  a  fact  does  not  make  that  fact  certain.  Thus  some 
persons  would  tell  us  that  we  have  no  certain  evidence  of 
the  existence  of  this  material  table  before  us,  because  we 
think  that  we  see  it.  You  do  not,  say  they,  see  the  table. 
All  that  you  perceive  by  the  senses  is  a  certain  colour,  form, 
hardness,  etc.    Nay,  more  ;  this  form  is  nothing  more  than 


40  On  Human  Responsibility. 

a  painting  on  the  retina  of  your  eyes  ;  and  even  this 
painting  undergoes  a  further  modification  by  the 
percipient  power  of  the  mind.  It  is  a  mere  delusion, 
therefore,  that  you  see  a  material  table.  All  that  you 
are  really  conscious  of  is  a  mental  perception,  and  it  is 
quite  uncertain  whether  there  is  any  outward  reality 
corresponding  thereto. 

I  reply  that  after  all  this  reasoning,  some  portions 
of  which  may  be  difficult  to  answer,  we  instinctively 
return  to  the  conviction  that  this  table  is  a  materially 
existing  thing,  quite  independent  of  our  preceptions  of 
it;  and  as  such,  the  kicking  of  our  bare  toes  against  it 
will  be  attended  with  discomfort.  The  objector  will 
say  the  sensation  is  only  an  idea.  Still  I  return  to  the 
instinctive  belief  in  the  reality  of  the  existence  of  the 
material  table,  although  I  cannot  answer  all  the  diffi- 
culties with  which  the  fact  of  its  existence  is  attended. 
But  this  difficulty  is  powerless  against  the  fact  that  our 
consciousness  is  a  true  witness  to  our  freedom.  The 
objector  fully  admits  that  our  minds  really  perceive 
certain  qualities  which  we  suppose  to  exist  in  the  table. 
The  only  doubt  raised  is  as  to  whether  the  external  table 
corresponds  to  these  mental  perceptions.  It  is  not 
attempted  to  be  denied  that  we  actually  perceive  them, 
and  so  far  they  are  true  facts.  In  the  same  manner  it  is 
an  equally  true  fact  that  we  are  conscious  that  we  are 
free  agents.     We  therefore  must  be  free. 

This  objection  may  be  made  to  assume  a  more 
specious  form.  It  is  urged  that  our  consciousness  is 
frequently  mistaken  as  to  the  reality  of  facts.  Thus  it  by 
no  means  follows  because  men  think  that  they  have 
seen  a  ghost,  that  they  have  really  seen  one.  Again,  one 
man  says  that  his  consciousness  tells  him  that  a  particular 


On  Human  Responsibility.  41 

object  is  red;  another  says  that  it  bears  witness  to  the 
fact  that  it  is  yellow.  The  truth  is,  that  in  this  latter  case 
a  man  has  the  jaundice.  The  inference  which  is  drawn 
is,  that  our  consciousness  is  not  reliable. 

I  answer  first,  that  the  testimony  of  999  out  of  every 
thousand  of  mankind  must  be  taken  as  representing  the 
truth ;  and  that  of  the  one  thousandth,  if  in  opposition 
to  it,  as  false.  If  this  is  not  so,  we  may  as  well  give  up 
the  inquiry  into  truth  altogether. 

But  secondly  :  the  objection  is  founded  on  a  palpable 
fallacy.  It  confounds  between  our  consciousness  and 
the  fact  external  to  it.  While  our  consciouness  may  not 
be  an  adequate  witness  of  the  truth  of  an  external  fact, 
it  must  be  so  as  to  the  truth  of  its  own  perceptions.  The 
man  who  affirms  that  he  is  conscious  of  seeing  a  ghost 
states  a  true  fact,  that  his  mind  perceives  one,  although 
he  may  be  under  a  delusion  as  to  its  external  reality. 
The  man  who  mistakes  a  red  object  for  a  yellow  one, 
actually  perceives  it  yellow.  In  a  similar  manner,  when 
the  mind  testifies  to  the  fact  of  its  own  freedom,  it 
testifies  to  the  truth  of  an  internal  perception  which  in 
this  case  has  nothing  external  corresponding  to  it,  respect- 
ing which  deception  is  possible.  As  therefore  we  are 
conscious  that  Ave  are  free,  and  this  consciousness  testi- 
fies to  a  fact,  we  must  be  free. 

The  next  objection  which  I  have  to  answer  is  that 
men  are  actuated  by  motives  ;  that  these  vary  in  power  ; 
that  in  the  struggle  between  them,  the  most  powerful 
must  prevail ;  and  therefore  the  assertion  that  we  are 
masters  of  our  own  actions  is  an  absurdity. 

First :  the  objection  involves  the  following  fallacy.  It 
presupposes  that  our  motives  are  separate  things  from 
ourselves,  and  can  exert  in  us  a  power  of  compulsion. 


42  Ott  Human  Responsibility. 

But  they  are  not  separate  from,  but  a  portion  of  ourselves. 
A  motive  means  a  reason  which  acts  on  the  mind,  and 
nothing  else. 

Secondly :  the  assertion  that  motives  vary  in  power, 
and  that  the  most  powerful  must  invariably  prevail,  con- 
tains a  multitude  of  fallacies. 

I  fully  concede  that  whenever  we  act,  we  have  some 
reasons  or  motives  which  urge  us  to  action ;  but  these 
cannot  be  put  into  a  pair  of  scales,  and  weighed  one 
against  the  other.  A  mass  of  iron  of  a  certain  weight  we 
cannot  lift ;  but  it  by  no  means  follows  that  an  impulse 
of  a  certain  character  we  cannot  resist. 

The  fallacy  arises  from  confounding  together  our 
motives  and  the  pleasures  with  which  particular  kinds 
of  actions  are  attended.  But  even  here  it  is  impossible 
to  weigh  the  force  of  different  kinds  of  pleasure  by  a 
common  measure.  Pleasures  differ  in  quality  as  well  as 
in  quantity.  The  pleasure  which  attends  a  great  in- 
tellectual exertion,  and  that  of  drinking  oneself  drunk, 
differ  wholly  in  kind.  If  estimated  by  its  intensity, 
the  pleasure  which  a  man  can  attain  by  a  combina- 
tion of  gluttony  and  drunkenness  in  a  single  day  may 
greatly  exceed  what  he  would  derive  from  any  mental 
occupation.  Still  there  exists  a  power  within  us  of 
choosing  the  higher  pursuit,  and  despising  the  lower. 

The  assertion  that  we  are  necessarily  impelled  by  the 
amount  of  pleasure  with  which  our  actions  are  accom- 
panied contradicts  the  most  palpable  facts.  It  is  absurd 
to  say  that  the  martyr  is  impelled  to  his  acts  of  self- 
sacrifice  by  considerations  of  pleasure.  I  appeal  to  your 
common  sense.  A  man  gives  his  body  to  the  burning 
flame,  sooner  than  deny  the  dictates  of  his  conscience. 
Another    drinks  himself  drunk,   to    gratify   the  lowest 


On  Human  Responsibility.  43 

appetites  of  his  nature.  In  what  scales  will  you  weigh 
the  motives  of  these  ?  Who  will  presume  to  say  that 
the  pleasure  of  the  martyr  exceeds  that  of  the  drunkard  ? 
It  is  obviously  impossible  to  measure  the  motives  which 
impel  them  by  any  common  standard  of  quantity;  or 
to  say  that  the  martyr  is  impelled  to  his  martyrdom  by 
a  self-love  over  which  he  could  exert  no  control.  The 
truth  is,  that  the  philosophy  which  teaches  that  we  are 
the  mere  creatures  of  physical  law,  and  that  virtue  is 
only  a  modification  of  selfishness,  leaves  little  room  for 
martyrdom. 

It  will  be  objected  that  the  martyr  is  animated  by  the 
hope  of  being  compensated  for  his  sufferings  in  the  world 
to  come ;  and  that  be  suffers  to  obtain  a  greater  good 
or  to  avoid  a  greater  pain.  I  shall  not  dispute  that  hope 
helps  to  support  him  in  his  agony.  But  mightier  sup- 
port than  distant  hope— every  motive  which  can  be  sum- 
moned to  bear  on  the  mind — is  necessary  to  support  him  in 
this  deadly  struggle.  It  is  certain  that  the  numbers  of 
those  who  have  died  in  torture  to  testify  tkeir  belief  or 
atheism  have  been  few.     ^ , 

Let  us  take  a  case  nearer  home.  -  An  artisan  wishes  to 
elevate  his  condition,  and  to  see  his  wife  and  family  happy 
and  comfortable.  To  effect  this  he  submits  to  various 
acts,  of  self-sacrifice.  Another,  intent  on  self-indulgence, 
expends  everything  on  his  own  bodily  gratification.  Will 
any  one  tell  me  that  the  former  of  these  is  the  neces- 
sary prey  _Gf  a  set  of  motives  which  he  cannot  resist  ? 
Could  not  the  prudent  man  be  imprudent,  if  he  so  willed, 
or  the  reverse  ?  It  is  clear  that  if  a  man  is  the  slave  of  his 
strongest  impulse,  to  talk  of  resisting  a  temptation  is  an 
absurdity.  How  can  I  resist  it,  if  I  do  not  possess  the 
power  of  self-control  ?     The  power  which  we  unquestion- 


44  On  Human  Responsibility 

ably  possess  of  resisting  and  struggling  against  temptation, 
although  in  many  men  it  may  be  weak,  proves  that  we 
are  in  possession  of  freedom,  and  that  therefore  we  are 
responsible. 

I  by  no  means  wish  to  deny  that  many  men  have  be- 
come the  slaves  of  habits,  which  in  a  certain  sense  are 
irresistible.  There  is  a  state  of  degradation  into  which 
human  nature  is  capable  of  sinking  under  the  influence  of 
habits  of  long  and  confirmed  vice.  To  take  a  very  telling 
instance  :  OT  all  vices,  perhaps  none  is  more  difficult 
to  cure  than  confirmed  drunkenness.  In  a  very  ad- 
vanced stage  of  it,  the  power  of  moral  self-restraint  seems 
to  be  almost,  if  not  entirely  gone.  The  sight  of  the 
bottle,  nay,  even  the  thought  of  it,  acting  on  a  state  of 
miserable  restlessness  and  ennui,  inflames  his  whole  being 
to  madness.  Something  similar  takes  place  in  all  stages 
of  advanced  vice.  Will  it  be  pretended  from  this  that 
man  has  no  responsibility?  I  admit  that,  in  the  case 
before  us,  the  power  of  self-command  has  become  almost 
destroyed.  But  how  came  this  state  of  things  about? 
Has  it  not  been  the  result  of  the  drunkard's  own  vo- 
luntary agency  ?  Has  he  not  made  himself  what  he  is 
by  the  gradual  formation  of  evil  habits  ?  Is  he  not  there- 
fore responsible  for  their  formation  ? 

An  old  heathen  moralist  could  tell  us  that  no  man  be- 
came sunk  into  a  state  of  utter  baseness  on  a  sudden.  I 
by  no  means  deny  that  it  is  possible  for  a  man  to  sink 
into  a  state  in  which  he  almost  says,  "  Evil,  be  thou  my 
good."  Certain  it  is  that  habitual  vice  can  so  lower  the 
moral  principles,  that  degraded  man  fails  to  see  the  evil 
of  wickedness  and  crime.  The  power  of  habit  is  mighty 
in  man,  in  its  influence  both  for  good  and  for  evil.  It 
elevates  him  high ;  it  causes  him  to  sink  low.     But  the 


On  Human  Responsibility.  45 

question  is,  how  does  he  get  thus  ?     Is  it  by  any  inevita- 
ble necessity  which  man  is  powerless  to  avert  ? 

I  fully  admit  that  a  state  of  confirmed  evil  is  a  thing 
terrible  in  its  consequences,  and  that  the  force  of  habit 
exerts  a  modifying  influence  on  responsibility,  though  it 
cannot  supersede  it.  Human  nature  is  mysteriously  and 
wonderfully  made.  Men,  by  an  indefinite  progress  in 
goodness,  can  become  elevated  to  a  height  which  can 
almost  set  the  power  of  temptation  at  defiance.  By 
progress  in  evil  they  can  sink  to  a  state  of  degradation, 
in  which  their  powers  of  resistance  are  reduced  almost 
to  nothing.  Under  the  influence  of  acquired  habit,  an 
action  which  was  once  very  difiicult,  can  be  performed, 
not  only  easily,  but  almost  instinctively.  You  who  are 
engaged  in  any  kind  of  mechanical  occupation  are  well 
acquainted  with  the  nature  of  this  power,  in  the  dexterity 
which  it  confers  on  you  in  the  use  of  your  instruments. 
Under  its  influence  complicated  actions  are  performed 
instinctively,  with  almost  the  rapidity  of  thought,  and  with 
an  ease  to  which  an  unskilled  workman  is  a  stranger.  I 
do  not  think  that  any  of  you  suppose  that  the  possession 
of  this  power  is  at  all  inconsistent  with  your  free  agency. 

It  does  not,  however,  lie  within  the  scope  of  the  present 
lecture  to  consider  whether  the  power  of  habits  is  or  is' 
not  a  desirable  one.  I  accept  it  as  a  fact,  and  readily 
admit  that  when  a  man  has  formed  habits  of  evil,  his 
powers  of  resistance  have  become  greatly  impaired: 
e.g.,  when  a  man  has  yielded  himself  to  the  dominion  of 
rage,  he  is  frequently  hardly  responsible  for  his  actions. 
But  the  real  question  at  issue  is,  what  has  brought  him 
into  this  state  ?  Is  he  not  himself  the  cause  of  his  own 
degradation  ?     If  so,  he  is  still  responsible. 

But  it  will  be  objected  that  a  great  number  of  men 


46  On  Human  Responsibility. 

are  born  with  bad  qualities,  perhaps  with  hereditary- 
tendencies  to  particular  vices  as,  for  example,  some  are 
born  with  naturally  bad  tempers  :  others  are  born  with, 
or  at  least  very  early  develop,  opposite  tendencies, 
whereby  the  pursuit  of  what  is  good  and  noble  is  com- 
paratively easy.  I  think  it  indisputable  that  there  is  a 
great  variety  in  the  mental  constitutions  of  different  men  ; 
or  at  least,  that  it  displays  itself  from  the  earliest  dawn 
of  their  reason.  So  far  this  modifies,  but  does  not 
destroy  responsibihty.  These  evil  qualities,  as  they  first 
display  themselves  in  human  nature,  are  within  our  power 
to  restrain,  and  it  is  the  duty  of  each  of  us  to  do  so. 
When  passion  becomes  ungovernable,  it  is  always  the 
result  of  a  formed  habit.  I  never  saw  a  boy  whose  temper 
was  so  naturally  bad  as  to  be  ungrwernable.  Nay,  in 
cases  where  the  habit  has  acquired  considerable  strength 
through  indulgence,  it  can  be  restrained  by  a  strong  exer- 
cise of  the  will.  I  have  known  a  man,  whose  bursts  of 
passion  in  his  own  family  were  excessive,  who  was  as 
smooth  as  oil  before  the  world. 

Another  objection  has  been  urged,  that  we  are  so  com- 
pletely the  creatures  of  our  birth  and  our  education,  that 
we  can  be  responsible  neither  for  our  characters  nor  our 
actions.  I  will  put  the  case  as  strong  against  responsibility 
as  I  can,  and  perhaps  I  shall  do  so  more  clearly  if  I 
adduce  a  particular  case,  rather  than  put  it  in  an  abstract 
form.  We  will  suppose  that  a  child  is  born  a  native  of 
Bengal.  I  take  this  particular  instance,  because  Lord 
Macaulay  tells  us  in  one  of  his  Essays,  that  the  Bengalese, 
as  a  race,  are  the  greatest  liars  on  earth.  What,  says  he, 
the  Greek  is  to  the  European,  the  Asiatic  is  to  the  Greek, 
and  the  Bengalese  to  the  Asiatic.  We  will  suppose 
that  a  child  is  born  and  educated  in  the  moral  and  intel- 


On  Human  Responsibility.  47 

lectual  life  of  this  race ;  can  he  be  responsible  for  his 
character  ? 

Or  take  another  instance.  A  child  is  born  in  a  family 
of  thieves.  The  family  associate  only  with  persons  of 
the  same  description,  and  he  lives  in  the  moral  atmos- 
phere of  plunder,  and  ultimately  becomes  a  thief ;  can  we 
hold  such  a  one  responsible  ? 

I  answer  that,  in  both  cases,  responsibility,  though 
greatly  modified,  is  not  destroyed.  The  effects  of  habit- 
ually breathing  an  impure  moral  atmosphere,  and  of  an 
evil  education,  are  frightful  to  contemplate.  Still  it  is 
not  a  fact  that  every  one  who  is  born  and  brought  up 
under  vicious  influences  inevitably  becomes  a  bad  man. 
It  sometimes  happens  that  the  sense  of  the  evil  conduct 
of  parents,  and  of  the  society  in  which  one  has  lived, 
turns  a  man  strongly  in  the  opposite  direction.  In  not 
a  few  case^men  have  seen  their  fathers'  sins,  and  have 
turned  from  them,  and  have  not  done  after  their  abomi- 
nations. If  this  were  not  so,  the  reform  of  society,  after 
it  has  attained  a  certain  stage  of  corruption,  would  be 
hopeless,  and  the  only  means  of  staying  its  progress  would 
be  to  cut  it  off  from  the  earth. 

What  effect  have  these  considerations  on  individual 
responsibility?  They  modify,  but  do  not  destroy  it. 
The  Judge  of  all  the  earth  will  hold  a  man  accountable 
for  what  he  has,  and  not  for  what  he  has  not.  Nothing 
but  His  all-penetrating  eye  can  thoroughly  disentangle 
the  complicated  web  of  human  actions,  and  estimate  the 
exact  good  or  evil  in  human  conduct.  I  think  this  is  one 
of  the  strongest  arguments  for  the  being  of  a  God  ;  for  if 
there  be  none,  and  if  there  be  no  hereafter,  neither  the 
individual  nor  society  can  estimate  at  their  right  value 
the   various   circumstances   which    modify   our    respon- 


48  On  Huinan  Responsibility. 

sibility.  It  follows  that  difficulties  such  as  I  have  con- 
sidered cannot  over-balance  the  primary  consciousness  of 
freedom,  which  is  inherent  in  human  thought.  Even  in 
the  most  demoraHzed  states  of  society  man  has  some 
power — it  may  be  a  small  one — of  discriminating  between 
right  and  wrong.  Until  he  has  attained  a  most  advanced 
stage  of  moral  recklessness  he  is  not  wholly  insensible  to 
the  evil  which  surrounds  him.  The  man  who  has  been 
educated  a  thief  may  have  a  very  imperfect  sense  that  it  is 
wrong  to  rob  another.  But  how  does  he  feel  when  an 
attempt  is  made  to  rob  him  ?  The  lowest  amount  of 
moral  perception  affords  room  for  responsibility. 

It  has  been  urged  that  the  effects  of  food,  climate,  pecu- 
liarities of  the  country  in  which  men  live,  and,  in  general, 
their  outward  surroundings,  bring  them  under  the  law  of 
physical  necessity.  Among  the  writers  of  eminence  who 
have  urged  this  difficulty,  the  late  Mr.  Buckle  holds  an  im- 
portant place.  Many  of  the  points  taken  by  him  afford  the 
strongest  proof  that  men  of  high  reputation  can  be  guilty 
of  pre-eminent  rashness  of  assertion.  I  will  adduce  a 
single  example,  selected  from  a  great  number  of  others. 
He  is  endeavouring  to  account  for  the  difference  of  mental 
constitution  between  the  Greeks  and  Hindoos,  and  he 
does  so  by  means  of  the  local  characteristics  of  their 
respective  countries.  Among  other  things,  he  assigns 
an  important  influence  to  the  gigantic  character  of  the 
mountains  of  India,  compared  with  those  of  Greece.  We 
all  know  that  the  Himalayas  are  the  highest  in  the  globe; 
but  Mr.  Buckle  forgot  to  take  into  account  the  most  im- 
portant fact,  that  before  mountainous  scenery  can  influence 
the  character  of  a  people,  it  is  necessary  that  they  should 
be  able  to  catch  sight  of  it.  Now  it  so  happens  that  an 
overwhelming  majority  of  the  inhabitants  of  India  have. 


On  Human  Responsibility.  49 

in  all  ages,  inhabited  the  valleys  of  the  Ganges  and  the 
Indus,  and  thus  have  never  had  the  opportunity  of  seeing 
the  mighty  mountains  of  India.  What  should  we  say  of 
a  writer  who  would  ascribe  the  character  of  the  inhabitants 
of  Cornwall  to  the  scenery  around  Ben  Nevis?  Until 
facts  are  correctly  stated  I  need  not  occupy  your  time  in 
refuting  theories  founded  on  them.  The  influences  of 
climate,  etc.,  exert  a  modifying  influence  on  man  ;  but  to 
assert  that  they  make  him  what  he  is,  or  that  they  nul- 
lify his  responsibility,  is  absurd. 

A  great  number  of  writers  in  the  present  day  call  on  us 
to  believe  that  our  freedom  is  crushed  beneath  the  pres- 
sure of  a  number  of  hard  invariable  laws,  which  we  are 
powerless  alike  to  modify  or  control.  ,  These  invite  us  to 
renounce  our  belief  in  the  freedom  of  our  actions,  at  the 
bidding  of  what  you  may  have  heard  called  the  science 
of  statistics.  Staticians  tell  us  that  numerous  classes  of 
actions  recur  in  nearly  the  same  numbers  year  by  year,  in 
proportion  to  the  total  number  of  the  population.  Thus 
the  numbers  of  murders  committed  year  by  year  are  said 
to  vary  in  this  proportion.  The  same  is  asserted  of  suicide 
and  various  other  crimes.  Nay,  we  are  told  that  the 
great  principle  of  marriage  is  subject  to  the  same  law. 
In  the  name  of  such  facts  we  are  invited  to  believe  that 
human  actions  are  governed  by  as  necessary  a  law  as 
that  of  gravitation. 

This  objection  presents  at  first  sight  so  great  an 
amount  of  plausibility,  that  I  must  give  it  a  careful 
consideration. 

I.  I  observe  that  the  word  "Law,"  as  used  in  the 
objection,  is  ambiguous.  The  Duke  of  Argyle,  in  his 
work  entitled  "The  Reign  of  Law,"  tells  us  that  this 
term  is  used  by  philosophers   in   five   different   senses, 

4 


50  On  Humajt  Responsibility, 

e.g.,  we  say  that  a  weight  falls  in  accordance  with  the  law 
of  gravitation,  which  is  impressed  on  all  matter.  A  statician 
tells  us  that  a  murder  took  place  in  accordance  with  the 
law  of  averages.  It  is  quite  evident  that  there  is  nothing 
in  common  between  these  two  expressions,  but  the  word 
"  law."  To  infer  that  an  action  that  occurs  in  conformity 
with  a  law  of  averages  is  necessary,  because  one  which 
fekes  place  in  conformity  with  that  of  gravitation  is, 
requires  only  common  sense  to  see  that  the  reasoning  is 
fallacious. 

2.  The  objection  that  we  can  predict  an  action  by 
the  aid  of  statistical  tables,  and  therefore  that  such  ac- 
tions must  obey  a  necessary  law,  involves  a  gross  fallacy. 
What  is  meant  is,  that  if  we  take  large  numbers  of  men, 
we  may  be  tolerably  sure  that  a  certain  number  of  them 
will  do  a  particular  act.  But  if  we  were  to  apply  this 
principle  to  any  particular  man,  and  say  that  he  would 
do  a  particular  act,  it  would  only  turn  out  true  by  a 
lucky  guess.  Thus,  it  is  tolerably  certain  that  twenty- 
five  out  of  every  thousand  men  will  die  in  any  given 
year.  But  it  is  in  the  highest  degree  uncertain  whether 
this  or  that  particular  person  will.  I  ask  you  to  observe 
that  no  such  uncertainty  prevails  in  the  results  of  the 
laws  of  nature.  We  are  not  tolerably  certain  as  to  these 
results,  but  absolutely  so.  We  do  not  conclude  that 
nine  hundred  and  seventy-five  stones  out  of  a  thousand 
will  drop  to  the  ground,  if  we  let  them  fall,  but  that  each 
one  will.  There  is  therefore  no  parallel  whatever  between 
the  two  cases. 

3.  The  so-called  laws  of  averages  are  not  invariable. 
Strictly  speaking,  therefore,  they  are  not  laws  at  all. 
It  is  not  true  that  the  same  number  of  murders  are  com- 
mitted year  by  year  in  proportion  to  the  population  in 


On  Human  Responsibility,  51 

this  country.  All  which  can  be  asserted  is,  that  they  are 
nearly  the  same.  I  ask  your  attention  to  this  word  nearly^ 
for  on  it  the  whole  force  of  the  argument  depends.  If 
they  were  the  result  of  any  necessary  law,  they  must  always 
be  the  same  under  similar  circumstances. 

4.  The  statistics  do  not  count  actions  separately  from 
the  results  produced  by  our  wills,  but  include  these, 
and  those  of  every  impulse  which  can  be  exerted  on  the 
mind.  It  is  quite  possible  to  reduce  a  number  of  the 
most  fortuitous  events  to  a  statistical  table.  If  any  one 
were  to  throw  up  a  penny  piece  5,000  times,  and  ask  me 
to  guess  heads  or  tails,  there  is  no  doubt  that  1  should 
be  right  in  my  guessings  about  2,500  times,  even  though 
I  might  invariably  say  heads.  Nothing,  however,  could 
be  more  absolutely  fortuitous ;  and  to  say  that  my  right 
guesses  were  the  result  of  any  necessary  law,  which  con- 
trols human  actions  in  any  proper  sense  of  that  term,  i? 
absurd. 

5.  Let  us  look  into  this  matter  with  the  eyes  of 
common  sense.  Mr.  Buckle  tells  us  "that  murder  is 
committed  with  as  much  regularity,  and  bears  as  uniform 
a  relation  to  certain  known  circumstances,  as  the  move- 
ments of  the  tides,  and  the  rotation  of  the  seasons.' ' 
What  are  the  facts?  Taking  a  large  number  of  years,  the 
number  of  known  murders  perpetrated  in  England 
amount  to  a  certain  average,  or  to  express  the  same  fact 
in  other  words,  they  will  amount  to  one  out  of  so  many 
thousand  of  the  population.  Now  observe  what  this 
means.  Not  that  the  number  of  murders  which  will  be 
committed  next  year,  or  any  other  year,  will  be  exactly 
the  same  as  this  average  number  j  but  will  be  not  very  far 
off  from  it.  V/here  then  is  the  invariable  law  which  proves 
that  the  actions  of  men  are  governed  by  influences  as 


52  On  Human  Responsibility, 

necessary  as  the  ebbing  and  flowing  of  the  tides,  and  the 
regular  succession  of  spring,  summer,  autumn,  and  winter? 

6.  But  what  about  the  alleged  uniformity  of  the  law  of 
suicides  ?  Does  not  this  prove  that  when  we  talk  about 
the  freedom  of  human  actions  it  is  all  nonsense.  Here 
again  I  might  apply  precisely  the  same  argument,  but  it 
is  needless  to  repeat  it.  But  the  case  of  suicide  is 
particularly  ill  chosen  by  our  opponents.  It  only  avails 
on  the  supposition  that  we  mean  by  freedom  a  power  to 
act  capriciously.  On  the  contrary,  we  connect  it  with 
the  highest  acts  of  our  rational  judgment.  Now  the  verdict 
of  juries  tells  us,  that  in  nearly  every  case  where  a 
suicide  takes  place,  the  person  who  kills  himself  is 
under  the  influence  of  unsoundness  of  mind.  In  one 
word  the  rational  will,  which  ought  to  hold  the  sove- 
reignty in  man,  is  dethroned,  and  mere  passion  and 
caprice  has  taken  its  place. 

7.  I  must  now  draw  your  attention  to  a  position  far 
more  startling  than  any  which  we  have  considered.  We 
are  told  that  everything  connected  with  one  of  the  most 
delicate  affairs  of  human  life,  courtship  and  marriage,  is 
necessary,  and  that  neither  our  wills,  our  whims,  nor 
our  caprices  have  anything  whatever  to  do  with  this 
important  matter,  but  the  average  price  of  corn  and 
wages.  Lest  you  should  think  I  misrepresent  him,  I 
will  quote  Mr.  Buckle's  own  words ;  he  says  : — 

"  Even  the  number  of  marriages  annually  contracted 
is  determined,  not  by  the  temper  and  wishes  of  indi- 
viduals, but  by  large  general  facts  over  which  individuals 
can  exercise  no  authority.  It  is  now  known  that  mar- 
riages bear  a  fixed  and  definite  relation  to  the  price  of 
corn ;  and  in  England  the  experience  of  a  century  has 
proved  that,  instead  of  having  any  connection  witli  per- 


On  Human  Responsibility.  53 

sonal  feelings,  they  are  simply  regulated  by  the  average 
earnings  of  the  great  mass  of  the  people ;  so  that  this 
great  religious  and  social  institution  is  not  only  swayed, 
but  is  completely  controlled,  by  the  price  of  food  and 
the  rate  of  wages." 

Ladies  and  gentlemen  who  are  contemplating  marriage, 
I  am  a  bearer  to  you  of  a  piece  of  unexpected  news. 
You  need  not  take  any  pains  whatever  about  this  matter ; 
it  is  simply  waste  of  time  to  make  any  efforts  to  be 
mutually  pleasing — it  is  all  determined  for  you  by  a 
power  over  which  you  can  exert  no  control.  As  to  us 
married  people,  we  have  been  under  a  fond  delusion  in 
thinking  that  personal  influences,  attractions,  or  even 
caprices  have  exerted  any  influence  in  bringing  this  matter 
about.  To  think  that  love  has  exerted  any  influence 
over  it  is  all  delusion.  We  have  been  the  hf)peless  prey 
of  corn  averages  and  rates  of  wages. 

I  am  quite  ready  to  allow  that  every  prudent  person, 
before  he  thinks  of  marriage,  ought  to  consider  whether 
his  horse  will  carry  double,  and  to  look  forward  to  the 
possible  contingency  of  its  having  to  carry  five  or  six. 
Still,  many  people  are  not  prudent.  Ireland  has  been  a 
remarkable  instance,  which  proves  that  prudential  con- 
siderations have  far  from  exerted  a  potent  force  on 
marriage  in  that  country.  In  the  days  of  its  greatest 
misery,  marriages  were  contracted  with  the  greatest  reck- 
lessness. But  when,  in  the  name  of  the  fact  that  mar- 
riages ought  to  be  contracted  with  an  eye  to  prudential 
considerations,  and  that  many  are  so,  we  are  asked  to 
believe  that  we  ourselves,  our  rational  wills,  our  affec- 
tions, nay,  our  sentimentalities,  and  even  our  caprices, 
have  exerted,  and  can  exert,  no  influence  over  this 
matter,  but   that  all  has  resulted  from  the  iron  law  of 


54  On  Human  Responsibility, 

necessity,  we  are  asked  to  believe  what  exceeds  the 
powers  of  even  the  most  credulous  of  mankind.  I  will 
not  assert  that  there  are  not  certain  hard-headed  men 
who  consult  the  tables  of  averages  during  every  month 
of  their  courtship.  Whether  this  was  the  case  with  the 
writer  whose  opinions  I  am  combatting,  I  cannot  tell, 
but  he  ought  not  to  have  assumed  that  it  was  so  with  or- 
dinary men  and  women.  I  am  confident  that  if  any  of 
you  will  go  into  the  confessional  with  me,  yoM  will  affirm 
that  Mr.  Buckle's  premises  and  conclusions  contradict 
your  experience. 

I  think  that  I  need  not  spend  any  further  time  in 
proving  that  the  question  of  our  free  agency,  and  con- 
sequently of  our  responsibility,  is  unaffected  by  such  con- 
siderations. It  rests  on  distinct  evidence  of  its  own,  so 
commanding  that  it  is  less  influenced  by  them  than  the 
mighty  rock  is  by  the  ripples  of  the  silent  ocean. 

There  is  one  question  of  supreme  importance  which 
remains  to  be  determined.  If  man  is  responsible,  to 
whom  is  he  responsible  ? 

If  the  principles  of  atheism  are  true,  the  universe  con- 
tains nothing  but  matter,  force,  and  law,  and  modifications 
of  them.  How,  out  of  any  combination  of  these,  moral 
affections,  or  even  life,  can  have  grown,  is  quite  beyond 
my  comprehension  ;  for  no  atheist  would  affirm  that  any 
of  the  original  constituents  of  the  universe  possessed 
either  personality,  life,  moral  affections,  or  freedom. 
Yet  these  exist. 

If  man  consists  of  nothing  but  matter,  acted  on  by 
blind  forces,  and  dominated  over  by  blind  laws,  he  must 
be  incapable  of  morality  or  self-sacrifice,  and  as  un- 
worthy of  praise  or  blame  as  the  table  before  me. 

But  many  atheists  are  far  better  men  than  their  prin- 


On  Human  Responsibility,  55 

ciples.  Overcome  by  the  stem  logic  of  facts,  they 
admit  that  man  possesses  a  responsibility  of  some  sort. 
Although  they  affirm  that  there  is  no  evidence  that 
God  exists,  to  whom  man  is  accountable  ;  they  do  not 
deny  that  he  is  responsible  to  society  and  himself. 
They  endeavour  to  erect  a  system  of  responsibility,  on 
the  assumption  that  man  is  capable  of  a  reasonable  self- 
love.  They  next  endeavour  to  show  that  every  other 
principle  of  morality  is  nothing  but  self-love  transmuted 
into  some  other  form.  From  this  it  follows  that  the 
grandest  acts  of  self-sacrifice  are  nothing  more  than 
transmutations  of  selfishness.  To  say  the  least  of  it, 
this  is  a  most  startling  position. 

If  there  be  no  God,  to  whom  I  am  responsible  because 
I  am  indebted  to  Him  for  my  existence  and  every  good 
thing  which  I  possess,  it  follows  that  I  can  only  be  re- 
sponsible to  myself  or  to  society,  as  far  as  it  possesses  a 
power  to  act  on  my  self-love.  The  expression,  "  being 
responsible  to  oneself,"  is  to  a  certain  extent  a  mis- 
nomer ;  for  it  must  mean  a  debt  to  oneself.  Such  debts 
resemble  taking  money  out  of  one  pocket,  and  putting 
it  into  another.  When  it  is  said  by  atheists,  that  man 
is  responsible  to  himself,  it  is  intended  that  there  are 
certain  lower  principles  in  human  nature  which  ought  to 
be  obedient  to  the  higher.  But  this  idea  of  "  ought," 
concedes  the  whole  question.  Why  ought  it  to  be  so  ? 
If  there  is  nothing  in  the  universe  but  matter,  law,  and 
force,  whence  came  this  idea  of  ought  or  duty?  Our 
conception  of  it  is  the  opposite  to  that  of  necessary  law. 

But,  assuming  for  argument's  sake  a  position  which  I 
believe  to  be  utterly  untrue,  that  all  moral  obligation  may 
be  resolved  into  self-love,  I  ask  what  possible  evidence 
can  I  have  that  I  am  bound  to  sacrifice  myself  for  the 


56  On  Human  Responsibility. 

good  of  others  ?  If  I  am  only  bound  to  love  myself,  what 
right  can  society  have  over  me,  except  the  law  of  the 
stronger?  What  right  can  it  have  to  demand  self-sacri- 
fice at  my  hands  ?  It  will  be  replied,  that  you  will  best 
provide  for  your  own  happiness  by  all  kinds  of  virtuous 
conduct,  especially  by  disinterestedly  seeking  the  happi- 
ness of  others.  It  may  be  so ;  but  supposing  that  I  cannot 
be  made  to  see  this.  If  virtue  is  only  another  form  of 
seeking  my  own  happiness  ;  and  if,  by  defective  intellect 
or  other  causes,  it  seems  to  me  that  self-indulgence  will 
make  me  more  happy  than  self-denial,  how  is  any  act 
involving  the  smallest  self-sacrifice  to  be  enforced  on  me 
otherwise  than  by  society  making  me  miserable  ?  If  this 
principle  be  correct,  the  most  virtuous  man  is  he  who 
has  the  clearest  intellect  to  calculate  his  own  interests. 

A  great  philosopher  adduced  an  illustration  of  this 
principle  more  than  2000  years  ago,  which  proves  that  it 
is  hopelessly  untenable.  The  ancients  feigned  that  a  man 
named  Gyges  possessed  a  ring  which,  whenever  he  wished, 
rendered  him  invisible  to  every  one,  while  he  retained 
his  powers  of  vision.  Socrates,  according  to  Plato,  sup- 
poses a  man  to  be  in  possession  of  this  ring.  What  in- 
fluence would  it  have  on  his  moral  conduct  if  virtue  is 
nothing  but  self-love?  It  is  obvious  that  it  would  free 
him  from  all  the  restraints  which  society  imposes  on  him ; 
and  if  there  be  no  God  and  no  hereafter,  he  would  be  in 
a  position  safely  to  give  the  most  unrestrained  indulgence 
to  his  own  appetites  and  passions.  It  would  convert 
moral  obligation  into  a  bugbear,  and  render  society  im- 
possible. 

But  I  shall  be  told  that  the  principle  which  I  am  con- 
tending against  really  means  that  we  are  bound  to  seek 
the  oreatest  hauDuiess  of  the  greatest  number,  and  thereby 


On  Human  Resp07tsibility.  57 

to  insure  our  own.  You  see  that  it  is  impossible  to  make 
a  single  assertion  on  this  point  without  contradicting  the 
whole  theory.  I  ask,  How  am  I  bound  ?  why  am  I  bound 
to  do  this?  You  say,  we  are  bound.  Yes,  to  our  own 
self-love,  if  there  is  nothing  in  the  universe  but  matter, 
force,  and  law ;  though  it  is  incomprehensible  how  we  can 
be  bound  over  to  that.  It  will  be  replied.  You  are  bound 
to  other  men.  Then  I  reply.  There  must  be  something 
which  binds  me  higher  than  myself,  or  than  anything 
originating  in  myself.  If  I  am  bound  by  a  sense  of  right, 
then  rectitude  must  be  a  thing  higher  than  I,  who  am 
bound  by  it ;  it  must  exist  in  something  higher  than,  and 
independent  of,  my  self-love,  and  to  which  it  ought  to 
offer  itself  a  willing  sacrifice.  It  is,  in  fact;,  I  who  am 
bound,  which  includes  my  self-love  and  my  entire  being. 
I  recognise,  therefore,  a  moral  law,  which  must  exist  inde- 
pendently of  myself,  and  is  invariably  and  unalterably 
the  same.  But  I  cannot  be  bound  by  an  abstraction. 
Abstractions  have  no  existence,  except  as  attributes  of 
concrete  things.  I  infer,  therefore,  that  there  must  be  a 
personal  being,  not  subject  to  the  changes  of  my  muta- 
bility, who  is  unalterably  the  same,  in  whom  rectitude  and 
holiness  dwell — the  living  God,  the  great  Creator,  who 
gave  me  being  and  a  moral  nature  capable  of  feeling  the 
obligations  I  am  under  to  Him. 

Atheistic  morality  affirms  that  man  is  responsible  to  his 
brother  man.  I  accept  the  affirmation  with  all  thankful- 
ness. It  is  the  recognition  of  a  great  fact,  that  whether 
man  can  reason  the  matter  out  clearly  or  not,  a  feeling 
of  obligation  exists.  It  is  a  declaration  coming  from  the 
inmost  recesses  of  the  human  heart,  which  is  stronger  than 
all  theories,  and  than  all  reasonings  founded  on  abstrac- 
tions.    It  is  inconsistent  with  the  affirmation  that  virtue 


58  On  Human  Responsibility, 

is  a  mere  form  of  self-love,  and  that  man  is  not  a  free 
agent.  Yes;  man  is  responsible  to  society.  I  accept 
the  truth.  Is  a  stone  responsible  to  society?  Does  a 
cat  owe  obligation  to  its  brother  cats  ?  No  ;  therefore 
there  must  be  something  in  man  which  is  neither  in  stone 
nor  cat.  But  we  feel  that  it  is  righteous  in  society  to 
punish  those  who  grossly  violate  their  obligations.  It 
does  so  daily,  either  by  formal  law  or  by  a  law  equally 
mighty,  though  enacted  by  no  Parliament.  Is  it  right  to 
punish  a  man  for  what  he  cannot  help  ?  The  universal 
conscience  of  man  answers  emphatically.  No.  Man  must, 
therefore,  be  a  free  agent. 

It  follows  that  man  must  be  bound  by  an  obligation 
higher  than  and  external  to  himself  Consider  the 
expression,  We.  ought  to  do  so.  What  does  it  mean? 
The  meaning  of  ought  is,  that  a  man  may  leave  a  thing 
undone,  if  he  pleases ;  but  that  he  ought  not  to  do  so. 
There  is  something  within  him  which  will  reproach  him 
if  he  does,  and  say,  you  ought  not.  There  is  an  obliga- 
tion before  which  you  ought  to  bow,  higher  than  you. 
To  matter,  force,  or  invariable  law  the  sense  of  duty  or 
obligation  is  utterly  inapplicable.  What  owe  I  to  them  ? 
There  is  something  within  us  which  points  to  something 
outside  us,  which  cannot  be  generated  by  their  united 
force. 

"  / ought"  The  idea  is  as  universal  as  man.  Even 
he  who  in  theory  denies  responsibility,  is  compelled  to 
use  the  unwelcome  word.  To  what  then  does  it  point  ? 
To  matter,  force,  or  law,  or  any  of  their  modifications? 
Meditate  on  the  mysterious  word,  for  it  reaches  to  the 
profoundest  depths  of  our  being.  What  does  it  affirm  ? 
//  is  right;  it  is  fitting ;  it  is  proper;  it  is  your  duty. 
It  may  even  raise  to  the  greater  elevation  of  the  senti- 


On  Human  Responsibility.     .  59 

ment,  "//  is  noble^  it  is  lovely  so  to  do.^^  When  I  say, 
^^  I  ought,''  I  affirm  the  presence  of  a  power  before  which 
everything  else,  even  self,  should  bend.  The  feeling, 
"  Jt  is  expedient,''  will  not  satisfy  its  demands.  It  affirms 
a  duty.  Must  not  that  duty  be  owed  to  some  one  in 
whom  obligation  centres,  and  who  has  a  right  to  demand 
self-sacrifice  at  our  hands  ?  Some  being  therefore  must 
exist  who  has  a  right  to  lay  me  under  obligations.  Does 
such  a  right  exist  in  my  brother  man  ?  I  may  be 
indebted  to  my  parents.  I  may  be  indebted  to  my 
educators.  I  feel  under  obligation  to  all  who  have 
done  me  good,  and  to  all  in  whom  holiness  and  goodness 
exist.  But  how  can  I  be  under  obligation  to  a  man,  who 
is  neither  good  himself,  nor  has  done  me  good?  Yet 
I  feel  the  obligation.  It  must  therefore  centre  some- 
where. The  only  foundation  on  which  it  can  be  made  to 
rest,  is  the  Being  who  has  made  me,  to  whom  all  gratitude 
is  due,  whose  moral  perfections  demand  my  humblest 
reverence  and  most  devoted  love.  I  can  fully  recognise 
the  right  of  Him  that  made  me  to  say,  I  demand  self- 
sacrifice  at  thy  hands  in  behalf  of  thy  brother  man,  whom 
I  have  made  also.  We  can  feel  that  obligation  is  due  to 
men,  because  we  are  all  the  children  of  a  common  Father; 
but  we  cannot  feel  it  because  we  are  the  children  of  a 
common  ape. 

The  feeling,  **  I  ought,'"  proves  the  existence  of  One 
outside  ourselves,  to  whom  it  corresponds,  in  whom 
obligation  centres,  and  to  whom  duty  is  due.  To  Him 
we  are  ail  responsible.  ^^  I  ought" — how  imperfectly  do 
we  succeed  in  realising  the  fulness  of  the  conception, 
and  embodying  it  in  practice!  I  infer  from  this,  that 
there  is  a  period  coming,  under  the  moral  government 
of  the  Creator,  when  we  shall  embody  it  in  a  higher 


6o  '  On  Human  Responsibility, 

and  more  perfect  form.  If  I  am  responsible,  He  will 
judge  me.  But  He  does  not  judge  me  here.  There 
must  therefore  be  an  hereafter. 

Human  conduct,  viewed  by  the  eye  of  man,  is  an 
entangled  web.  We  cannot  determine  the  precise  mea- 
sure of  the  responsibility  of  others.  None  but  He  who 
knows  all  things  can  estimate  the  exact  character  of  our 
motives,  the  exact  limits  of  our  freedom,  or  the  exact 
guilt  of  our  conduct.  Under  every  difficulty  with  which 
this  subject  is  attended,  we  may  rest  assured  that  the 
great  God  will  demand  of  each  individual  only  as  much 
as  He  has  given ;  and  that  the  Judge  of  all  the  earth 
will  certainly  do  right.  Let  us  remember  that  to  Him 
we  are  bound  by  the  highest  obligations  ;  that  we  are 
His  by  creation ;  that  we  are  His  by  providence,  and 
His  by  redemption;  that  these  bind  us  to  Him  by  a 
moral  law,  which  is  recognised  by  our  inmost  hearts,  and 
through  Him  to  our  brother  man ;  that  the  Author  of  our 
being  has  the  right  to  call  us  to  account,  and  that  His 
perfections  require  Him  to  do  so. 

It  follows,  therefore,  that  the  facts  of  consciousness 
and  the  deepest  intuitions  of  human  nature  prove  that 
man  is  responsible  to  God,  and  that  his  responsibility  to 
God  causes  him  to  recognise  his  responsibility  to  man. 
Man  is  a  free  agent,  the  voluntary  cause  of  his  own 
actions  ;  and  as  far  as  they  are  voluntary  he  is  account- 
able for  them.  *'  Each  of  us  must  give  account  of  him 
self  to  God." 


CHRISTIANITY  IS  NOT  THE  INVENTION 
OF  IMPOSTORS  OR  OF  CREDULOUS 
ENTHUSIASTS. 

BY  THE 

REV.  JOHN    GRITTON, 

AUTHOR  OF  "missionary  MONOGRAMS,"  "THE  WORD  AND  THE  WAY,"  ESSAY  ON 
"music,  AND  FAINTED  WINDOWS  IN  CHURCHES,"  ETC. 


Christianity  is  not  the  Invention  of 
Impostors  or  of  Credulous  Enthu^ 
siasts. 


THE  world  was  amused  fifty  years  since  by  clever 
and  well-simulated  doubts  concerning  the  existence 
of  Napoleon  Buonparte ;  and  within  the  past  five  years 
a  scientific  and  witty  writer  has  called  in  question  the 
existence  of  the  central  orb  of  our  solar  system.  Possibly 
the  day  may  come  when,  in  the  interests  of  religious 
scepticism,  some  one  may  endeavour  to  cast  historic 
doubts  on  the  existence  of  Christianit)f  and  to  blot  from 
the  spiritual  universe  the  sun  of  righteousness. 

There  will  be  needed,  however,  a  strange  preparation 
for  the  process.  The  myth  of  the  seven  sleepers  must 
be  transmuted  into  fact  for  all  nations  which  have  a  past, 
and  for  all  human  beings  who  possess  memory;  and 
when  the  sleeping  race  shall  again  open  their  eyes  and 
take  notice  of  the  world  in  which  they  awaken,  it  must 
be  a  world  in  which  some  destructive  process  shall  have 
reduced  to  dust  every  one  of  the  innumerable  monu- 
ments and  tokens  of  Christianity  which  surround  us 
to-day.     Human  knowledge,  and  the  world  on  which  it 


64     Christianity  not  the  Invention  of  Impostors 

exercises  its  powers,  must  have  each  become  a  tabula  rasa; 
and,  when  that  shall  have  come  to  pass,  the  very  process 
by  which  only  the  speculation  might  become  possible 
will  have  destroyed  the  possibility  of  forming  any  specu- 
lations at  all  on  the  then  non-existent  Christian  system. 

Ten  thousand  doubts  may  arise  concerning  the  origin 
and  character  of  Christianity,  ten  thousand  specula- 
tions may  be  indulged  concerning  its  aim  and  results ; 
but  the  most  vagrant  flight  of  the  wildest  imagination 
cannot  reach  to  the  conception  of  its  non-existence, 
unless  the  imagination  can  also  embrace  the  vagaries  ot 
the  Hindu  Maya,  and  resolve  all  existence  into  illusion. 

But,  short  of  the  denial  of  its  existence,  there  seem  no 
limits  to  the  doubts  which  have  troubled  men  with  refer- 
ence to  Christianity. 

While,  however,  the  difficulties  which  men  entertain 
concerning  the  origin  of  Christianity  are  very  many,  they 
fall  under  four  theories,  when  classified. 

Some  conclude  that  the  Christian  system  is  the 
Ciystallization  and  fixture  of  masses  of  undefined  myth, 
which  have  had  their  birth  through  long  ages ;  and  that 
the  Christ  of  the  Bible  is  the  embodiment  of  many 
fancies  of  men  concerning  heroism,  self-sacrifice,  and 
benevolence.  This  theory  is  generally  adopted  by  men 
who  cannot  accept  the  historic  verity  of  the  Gospel,  and 
who  yet  have  their  moral  sense  sufficiently  quickened  to 
shrink  from  any  implication  of  deliberate  fraud  in  the 
formation  of  a  system  which  everywhere  rebukes  fraud 
and  condemns  dishonesty. 

There  are  other  students  who  hesitate  to  refer 
Christianity  to  deliberate  fraud  and  im.posture;  and 
endeavour  to  explain  its  origin  on  the  assumption  that  it 
is  the  invention  of  enthusiasts,  whose  judgment  and  ecu- 


Or  of  Credulous  Enthusiasts.  C 


science  were  ruled  over  by  a  tyrannous  credulity — men 
who,  intending  no  wrong,  yet  mistook  facts  for  fancies, 
and  fancies  for  facts,  utterly  misapprehended  the  meaning 
of  events  which  passed  before  them;  who,  being  them- 
selves completely  deceived,  became  the  unconscious 
deceivers  of  the  ages  which  succeeded  them. 

Others,  who  are  less  the  creatures  of  imagination,  and 
are  gifted  with  a  truer  judgment  concerning  proba- 
bilities, and  yet  are  repelled  from  the  Christian  system 
as  a  whole,  and,  unwilling  to  accept  it  with  all  its 
consequences,  are  driven  to  assert  that  it  is  the  result 
of  imposture — the  deliberate  misrepresentation  of  real 
events,  the  dishonest  record  of  actual  facts,  and  the 
wilful  invention  of  words  and  deeds  and  persons  which 
might  form  a  conglomeration  of  truth  and  falsehood, 
light  and  darkness,  good  and  evil,  sufficiently  consistent 
to  impose  on  the  generality  of  mankind,  but,  like  all  other 
lies,  unauthoritative  and  barren  of  good. 

The  vast  majority  of  those  who  have  read  the 
Christian  books,  and  have  applied  their  minds  to  the 
conditions  of  the  great  problem  of  Christianity,  are 
unable  to  accept  either  of  the  three  theories  stated 
above,  or  any  possible  combination  of  them.  They  find 
that  the  facts  of  the  case  are  inexplicable  on  any  suppo- 
sition but  the  truth  of  the  records  on  which  the  system 
is  founded,  and  the  consequent  and  necessary  truth  of 
the  system  itself.  They  feel  that  crystallized  myths, 
credulous  imaginings,  and  dishonest  inventions,  separate 
or  in  combination,  could  never  have  created  the  Jesus  of 
the  Gospels,  or  elaborated  the  Christian  religion. 

This  conviction  is  attended  with  a  deep  sense  of  the 
loss  which  men  suffer  who  do  not  recognize  the  historic 
truths    of  Christianity,  and  of  the  danger  which  they 

5 


6^     Christianity  not  the  Invention  of  Impostors 

incur   by   treating   the  Gospel  with   neglect,  or  setting 
themselves  in  opposition  to  it.  « 

These  convictions  explain  our  present  position.  We 
know  that  many  reject  Christianity,  and  with  more  or 
less  of  deliberation  take  toward  it  the  attitude  of  op- 
posers.  We  believe  they  are  misled  and  endangered; 
and  we  would  gladly  assist  them  to  reconsider  the  mat- 
ter by  giving  a  reason  for  the  hope  which  is  in  us. 

We  may  put  on  one  side  the  consideration  of  the 
pure  mythical  origin  of  Christianity,  except  so  far  as  it 
may  be  incidentally  noticed  in  connexion  with  the 
credulous  enthusiastic  theory,  because  as  a  matter  of  fact 
very  few  attach  any  importance  to  it,  and  those  few  are 
mere  dreamers  who  please  their  imagination  with  the 
play  of  poetic  scepticism,  and  who  will  not  be  found  in 
places  such  as  those  in  which  we  are  met  in  conflict. 
Our  voices  will  not  reach  them,  and  our  time  would  be 
wasted  in  the  attempt  to  penetrate  the  haunted  bowers 
of  their  luxurious  dilletantism. 

Let  us  pass  on  to  the  question  whether  it  be  a  suf- 
ficient account  of  Christianity  to  say  that  it  is  the  inven- 
tion of  credulous  enthusiasts. 

An  enthusiast  may  have  many  amiable  qualities,  and 
be  a  very  admirable  person  as  to  earnestness  and  single- 
ness of  purpose ;  but  in  almost  every  case  he  will  be 
wanting  in  judgment,  and  be  subject  to  the  lead  of  a 
badly  balanced  mind.  If  to  these  infirmities  there  be 
added  an  easiness  of  behef  amounting  to  credulity,  the 
result  will  be  that  he  will  believe  amiss,  and  be  led  to  any 
course  of  action  which  may  fall  in  with  his  views,  with  no 
sufficient  regard  to  the  justice  and  uprightness  of  that 
course.  Such  an  one  might  accept  a  myth  as  a  fact, 
might  mistake  a  shadow  for  a  person,  might  elevate  a 


Or  of  Credulous  Euthusiasts.  6y 

fellow-creature  into  a  deity,  and  being  thus  blinded, 
might  say  or  do  anything  which  promised  permanency  to 
his  delusion,  or  honour  to  his  idol. 

Should  a  number  of  such  persons  be  possessed  by  the 
same  idea,  and  be  associated  together  on  the  ground 
of  that  possession,  all  their  characteristics  will  be 
intensified.  The  delusion  which  misleads  them  will  be 
strengthened  by  the  union  of  so  many  separate  per- 
versities, and  their  course  of  conduct  will  become  zig-zag 
with  multiplied  crookednesses. 

In  their  work  we  shall  behold  abundance  of  imagina- 
tion, and  but  little  judgment.  Many  lights  of  eccentric 
genius  will  sparkle  on  their  way,  but  the  power  which 
could  collect  them  into  a  focus,  and  direct  them  in  one 
steady  brilliancy  on  the  path  they  tread  will  be  wanting. 
Looking  with  fixity  of  gaze  on  the  one  end  they  pursue, 
they  will  behold  in  distorted  proportion  all  the  things 
by  which  they  hurry  in  their  onward  course ;  saying  any- 
thing which  will  glorify  their  idol,  they  will  constantly  be 
betrayed  into  inaccuracies  such  as  can  be  tested  and'  ex- 
posed by  facts  which  touch  their  statements  at  various 
points ;  dreamers,  and  not  poets,  their  work  will  be  rather 
the  rhythmical  fantasies  of  disordered  intellect,  than  the 
solemn  drama  in  which  the  unities  are  preserved,  and 
each  circumstance  is  in  consistent  relation  to  every  other 
and  to  the  whole  work.  We  have  to  deal  with  the  sup- 
position that  Christianity  is  the  invention  and  work  of 
such  credulous  enthusiasts. 

Before  we  pass  to  the  examination,  let  it  be  clearly 
understood  that  we  mean  by  Christianity  the  religion 
which  the  books  of  the  New  Covenant  contain,  and  that 
only. 

We  are  concerned  only  with  those  things  which  are 


68     Christianity  not  the  Invention  of  Impostors 

contained  in  Holy  Writ,  and  we  include  everything 
which  Holy  Writ  teaches.  We  are  not  concerned  with 
winking  Madonnas,  ship-loads  of  pieces  of  the  true  cross, 
or  liquifying  blood  of  Neapolitan  saints.  It  is  not  for  us 
to  defend  the  Pope  with  his  ever  erring  infallibility,  or  to 
excuse  priestly  assumptions  of  creative  power.  "  What- 
soever is  not  to  be  read  (in  Holy  Scripture),  nor  may  be 
proved  thereby,  is  not  to  be  required  of  any  man  that  it 
should  be  believed  as  an  article  of  the  faith,  or  be 
thought  requisite  or  necessary  to  salvation." 

Was  Christianity,  as  revealed  to  us  in  Scripture,  the 
invention  of  credulous  enthusiasts  ? 

We  have  seen  what  are  the  inevitable  characteristics 
of  enthusiastic  thought,  or  teaching,  or  doing.  If  the 
Christianity  of  the  Scriptures  answers  to  them,  the  con- 
clusion may  be  accepted.     Is  such  the  case  ? 

Let  it  be  tested  by  the  character  of  the  central  figure 
of  the  system,  that  unique  being  whom  the  authors  of  the 
Gospel  accepted  as  Master,  and  worshipped  as  Lord,  whose 
steps  they  attended,  whose  teachings  they  record,  and 
whose  life  they  have  pourtrayed.  If  the  character  of  Jesus 
be  an  invention,  and  they  the  originators  of  it,  how  comes 
it  to  pass  that  they  have  marked  it  with  just  those  qualities 
which  would  be  expected  to  be  omitted  and  overlooked 
by  such  persons  ?  Take  the  unity  of  character  in  Jesus. 
On  the  assumption  of  His  real  historic  being,  and  judged 
by  the  declared  purpose  and  end  of  His  conduct,  is  not 
everything  in  proportion  and  order  ?  Think  of  His 
dealings  with  self-righteous  hypocrites  and  heart-broken 
sinners.  Mark  His  bearing  in  the  presence  of  the  great 
and  mighty,  and  in  the  dwellings  and  haunts  of  the 
poor.  Regard  Him  in  His  relations  as  Son,  brother, 
teacher,  master,  and  friend.     Follow  Him  into  crowds 


Or  of  Credulous  Enthusiasts.  69 

and  into  solitude.  Hear  His  words  to  men  and  His 
utterances  to  the  Father  in  heaven.  See  Him  when 
for  others  He  puts  forth  supernatural  energy,  and  when 
for  Himself  He  will  not  use  such  powers :  is  not  all 
consistent  with  the  supposition  that  He  was  the  God- 
man,  living  not  only  a  life  with  two  sides,  one  towards 
man  and  one  towards  God  (which  is  true  of  every 
godly  person),  but  living  out  two  distinct  lives  in  one 
— never  ceasing  to  be  the  visitor  from  a  higher  world, 
the  sojourner  for  a  time  among  the  abodes  of  men  in 
man's  nature  ? 

Mark  the  prudence  of  His  teaching  in  deahng  with 
all  kinds  of  men,  and  the  deep  insight  He  displays  into 
motives  and  dispositions.  How  often  and  how  imme- 
diately did  the  human  conscience  respond  to  His 
rebukes,  and  the  human  heart  answer  to  His  words  ot 
kindness  and  wisdom.  Notice  again  how  consistently 
His  teaching  is  full  of  the  seeds  of  things — how  in 
dealing  with  a  special  case  He  lays  down  truths  and 
rules  applicable  to  ten  thousand  other  cases — how  in 
speaking  to  Jews  He  enunciates  principles  applicable  to 
all  nations  ;  and  while  teaching  men  of  the  first  century, 
so  speaks  that  nineteen  centuries  later  men  turn  to  His 
directions  for  guidance  and  instruction. 

Let  it  be  also  borne  in  mind  that  this  wonderful  unity 
and  versimilitude  of  teaching  is  not  pourtrayed  by  one 
hand,  and  is  not  the  creation  of  one  man's  mind.  All 
men,  whether  gifted  or  not  with  critical  acumen,  recognize 
that  the  four  books  which  supply  to  us  all  the  known 
facts  concerning  Jesus  Christ,  are  by  different  hands — 
that  whether  they  are  the  writings  of  Matthew,  Mark, 
Luke,  and  John,  or  no,  they  are  certainly  the  writings  of 
four  persons.     Let  it  be  further  remembered  that  while 


70     Christianity  not  the  Invention  of  Impostors 

three  of  the  four  volumes  are  largely  synoptical,  and  deal 
commonly  with  the  same  events,  they  to  a  considerable 
extent  deal  with  incidents  peculiar  to  some  one  of  them  ; 
and  that  the  fourth,  that  of  John,  is  totally  distinct,  and  for 
the  mxost  part  deals  with  acts  and  teachings  of  Jesus 
which  the  other  three  do  not  describe.  It  follows,  there- 
fore, that  we  are  met  not  only  by  the  great  improba- 
bility that  any  one  credulous  enthusiast  could  imagine 
or  create  the  unique  consistency  of  the  character  of 
Jesus,  but  by  the  greater  improbability  that  four  more  or 
less  independent  credulous  enthusiasts  should  agree  in 
their  representations,  and  act  so  exactly  like  truthful 
historians,  that  only  on  the  assumption  that  they  were 
such  can  any  plausible  account  be  given  of  their  vari- 
ances and  agreements. 

It  may  be  replied  that  the  very  acceptance  of  any  teach- 
ing which  supposes  miraculous  interference,  or  which 
asserts  the  dwelling  among  men,  and  as  a  man,  of  a 
Divine  being,  is  in  itself  a  sufficient  proof  of  credulity  and 
unreasoning  enthusiasm.  Before  this  assertion  can 
destroy  the  force  of  what  has  been  advanced,  it  will  be 
necessary,  not  to  assert,  but  to  prove,  that  miraculous 
interference  is  impossible ;  not  to  assert,  but  to  prove, 
that  the  incarnation  of  a  Divine  being  is  incredible. 

Let  us  now  enquire  whether  other  characteristics  of  the 
Gospels  are  consistent  with  the  supposition  that  they  are 
the  invention  of  credulous  enthusiasts,  bearing  in  mind 
as  we  do  so  what  has  been  said  with  reference  to  such 
persons. 

The  histories  on  which  Christianity  is  founded  do  not 
present  to  us  a  person  separated  from  others,  and  placed 
in  an  imaginary  locality  which  the  fancy  may  fix  in  any 
continent,  or  in  any  part  of  some  immense  country,  as  is 


Or  of  Credulous  Enthusiasts.  yi 

the  case  with  Rasselas,  the  beautiful  creation  of  Samuel 
Johnson's   imagination ;    nor   do   they   describe    events 
which  may  be  referred  to  any  century  at  pleasure.     The 
four  Gospels,  so  called,  and  the  book  of  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles,  are  definite  in  their  chronology  and  their  topo- 
graphy.    In  the  course  of  the  history  we  are  led  through 
the  length  and  breadth  of  Palestine.     Cities  and  villages, 
mountains  and  valleys,    rivers   and  wells,  gardens  and 
deserts,  are  connected  with  many  separate  events,  and 
linked   one   with   another   in   various   orders.      Minute 
characteristics  of  localities  are  noticed,  as  well  as  more 
general  features.     The  view  extends  beyond  Palestine  to 
Syria,  Asia  Minor,  the  ^gean,  Greece,  Italy,  and  Spain, 
Cyprus,  Rhodes,  Crete,  and  Melita.     The  history  carries 
us  to  Damascus,  the  Syrian  Antioch,  Tarsus,  the  Pysidian 
Antioch,    Derbe,    Iconium,    Lystra,    Athalia,    Ephesus, 
Smyrna,    Miletus,    Troas,    Philippi,     Athens,    Corinth, 
Syracuse,     Neapolis,    the    Appii    Forum,    and    Rome. 
These  various  places  are  the  scenes  of  incidents  in  which 
Jew  and  Gentile,  Roman  and  Greek,  philosopher  and 
barbarian,  play  their  part.     Forms  of  government,  minute 
distinctions  in  Roman  polity,  civic  arrangements,  and 
colonial    peculiarities,    influence   the   course   of  events. 
These  events  are  distinctly  associated  with  persons  whose 
connexion  or  contemporary  existence  is  asserted.    Herod 
the  Great,  Herod  Archelaus,  Herod  Antipas,  are  among 
the   dramatis   personse,  as   are  Pilate,  Felix,   Gamaliel, 
Sergius  Paulus,  Galio,  Augustus  Caesar,  Nero.     If  these 
persons  and  places  are  combined  with  minutiae  of  circum- 
stances, what  innumerable  chances  of  error  will  result, — 
errors  such  as  even  fairly  instructed,  well-informed,  and 
truthful  writers  might  fall  into  j    but  if  some  four  or  a 
dozen  credulous  enthusiasts  are  venturing  into  circum- 

<^*'   Of  THE         «^ 

USriVBESITT] 


72     Christianity  not  the  Invention  of  Impostors 

stances  so  complicated, — ignorant,  biassed,  blinded  by 
prejudice,  and  easily  imposed  upon, — cannot  any  one  See 
that  they  will  blunder  hopelessly,  and  betray  their  folly  at 
every  step  ?  And  what  are  the  facts  as  to  these  histories  ? 
The  points  in  which  topographical,  chronological,  or  poHti- 
cal  mistake  has  been  imputed  to  the  writers  in  the  New 
Testament  maybe  reckoned  up  on  the  fingers.  Of  those 
instances  some  are  grounded  on  mistaken  renderings  of 
correct  originals,  some  have  been  entirely  justified  by  the 
light  of  increasing  knowledge,  and  the  one  or  two  which 
remain  still  open  to  question  are,  at  the  most,  apparent 
exceptions  to  a  clear  and  marvellous  regularity  of  con- 
sistency. Not  even  now  have  we  summed  up  the  im- 
probabilities which  beset  the  supposition  that  Christianity 
is  the  inventien  of  credulous  enthusiasts. 

There  must  be  added  a  thousand  confirmations  from 
niceties  of  speech,  dialectical  peculiarities,  grammatical 
constructions,  and  quotations  from  older  writings,  both 
Hebrew  and  heathen. 

Nice  and  accurate  touches  as  to  climate,  fruits,  flowers, 
the  animal  and  metallic  kingdoms,  multiply  the  chances 
of  error,  and,  in  the  same  degree,  diminish  the  possibility 
of  any  solution  but  that  which  recognises  the  historical 
truth  of  the  books  in  question. 

There  remains  one  other  view  of  the  matter  to  which 
we  shall  do  well  to  pay  attentive  heed  before  we  give  a 
final  reply  to  the  supposition  we  have  been  sifting. 

Does  the  general  tone  of  teaching  in  the  Christian 
books  warrant  the  assumption  of  their  being  the  invention 
of  easily  deceived  and  unreasonable  enthusiasts  ?  Have 
not  sceptics  of  all  schools  admitted  the  fact  that  the 
Gospels  and  Epistles  are  full  of  manifold  wisdom  ?  Are 
not   multitudes   of  doubters  in  this  nineteenth  century 


Or  of  Credulous  Enthusiasts.  73 

admirers  of  New  Testament  morality,  even  while  they 
reject  the  miraculous  and  supernatural  elements  with 
which  the  teaching  is  connected  ?  Has  it  not  been  the 
aim  of  doubters  in  various  ages  to  derogate  from  the  pecu- 
liar wisdom  of  the  Christain  teaching, — not  by  question- 
ing its  excellence,  but  by  trying  to  show  that  Socrates, 
Plato,  Seneca,  Aristotle,  Homer,  Virgil,  and  others,  the 
wisest  men  and  the  deepest  thinkers  of  the  human  family, 
have  taught  as  divinely  ? 

A  man  may  turn  from  the  record  of  miraculous  inter- 
position in  the  Gospels  with  disdain,  but  if  he  have  any 
sense  of  man's  condition,  or  any  appreciation  of  what  is 
suited  to  man,  can  he  despise  the  parabolic  teaching  of 
the  Gospels,  or  turn  with  disdain  from  the  sermon  on  the 
mount?  He  may  regard  as  incredible  the  records  of 
sight  given  to  the  Wind,  hearing  to  the  deaf,  deliverance 
to  demon-possessed  bodies  and  souls  of  men ;  or  other 
records,  of  hungry  multitudes  fed  to  satisfaction  by  a  few 
loaves  and  fishes,  tempests  quieted  by  a  word,  trees 
withered  to  the  roots  at  a  rebuke,  and  the  dead  recalled 
to  life ;  but  can  he  deny  the  wisdom  and  graciousness  of 
many  words  put  into  the  mouth  of  Jesus?  Can  he  find 
it  in  his  heart  to  rebuke  words  spoken  to  publicans  and 
sinners,  fallen  women  in  their  misery,  and  greedy  farmers 
of  taxes  in  their  awakenings  of  conscience  ? 

On  the  supposition  of  the  existence  of  a  Supreme  Being 
who  is  at  once  Creator  and  Preserver,  who  rules  as  a 
king  and  loves  as  a  father,  can  any  law  to  regulate  our 
conduct  towards  that  Supreme  Being  be  stated  in  words 
more  wise  than  those  put  into  the  mouth  of  Jesus,  "Thou 
shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy  heart,  and  with 
all  thy  soul,  and  with  all  thy  might,  and  with  all  thy 
strength"  ?  Has  moral  philosophy  or  has  political  economy 


74     Christianity  not  the  Inveittion  of  Impostors 

discovered  more  fruitful  rules  as  to  man's  relation  with 
his  fellow,  than  those  which  are  given  as  the  words  of 
Jesus,  "  Do  unto  others  as  ye  would  they  should  do  unto 
you,"  "Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbour  as  thyself"?  Are 
these  utterances  credulous,  enthusiastic,  fanatical?  It 
so,  we  can  but  reply.  Credulity,  be  thou  my  trust ; 
Enthusiasm,  be  thou  my  sobriety ;  Fanaticism,  be  thou 
my  reason ! 

Or,  to  pass  to  the  Epistles  :  the  sceptic  may  pour  scorn 
on  the  doctrinal  and  dogmatic  portions  of  the  various 
letters  of  Paul,  or  Peter,  or  John;  he  may  regard  the 
statements  concerning  sin,  and  its  removal ;  the  guilty 
soul,  and  its  justification ;  the  old  man,  and  the  new 
nature,  as  so  many  utterances  without  meaning ;  but  can 
he  venture  to  include  in  his  condemnation  the  practical 
admonitions  of  the  Epistles  ?  Let  him  listen  to  the 
following,  and  then,  with  his  hand  on  his  heart,  condemn 
them  as  credulous  fanaticism,  if  he  can  :  "  Provide  things 
honest  in  the  sight  of  all  men.  If  it  be  possible,  as  much 
as  lieth  in  you,  live  peaceably  with  all  men."  "Love 
worketh  no  ill  to  his  neighbour,  therefore  love  is  the 
fulfilling  of  the  law"  (Rom.  xii.  17,  18:  xiii.  10); 
"  Though  I  speak  with  the  tongues  of  men  and  of  angels, 
and  have  not  love,  I  am  become  as  sounding  brass,  or  a 
tinkling  cymbal"  (i  Cor.  xiii.  i);  "We  can  do  nothing 
against  the  truth,  but  for  the  truth  "  (2  Cor.  xiii.  18); 
"  Let  us  not  be  desirous  of  vain  glory,  provoking  one 
another,  envying  one  another"  (Gal.  v.  26);  "Let  him 
that  stole  steal  no  more,  but  rather  let  him  labour,  work- 
ing with  his  hands  the  thing  which  is  good,  that  he  may 
have  to  give  to  him  that  needeth"  (Eph.  iv.  28);  "  What- 
soever things  are  true,  honest,  just,  pure,  lovely  and  of 
good  report,  if  there  be  any  virtue,  and  if  there  be  any 


Or  of  Credulous  Enthusiasts,  75 

praise,  think  on  these  things"  (Phil.  iv.  8);  "Put  off  all 
these,  anger,  wTath,  malice,  blasphemy,  filthy  communi- 
cations out  of  your  mouth.  Lie  not  one  to  another"  (Col. 
iii.  8,  9) ;  "  Let  no  man  go  beyond  and  defraud  his 
brother  in  any  matter"  (i  Thess.  iv.  6);  "Be  not 
weary  in  well  doing"  (2  Thess.  iii.  13);  "Every  creature 
of  God  is  good,  and  nothing  to  be  refused,  if  it  be 
received  with  thanksgiving"  (i  Tim.  iv.  4);  "Shun 
profane  and  vain  babblings"  (2  Tim.  ii.  16);  "Speak 
evil  of  no  man ;  be  no  brawlers,  but  gentle,  showing  all 
meekness  unto  all  men"  (Titus  iii.  2);  "Let  brotherly 
love  continue  3 "  "  Remember  them  which  are  in  bonds,  as 
bound  with  them  ;  "  "  Let  marriage  be  honourable  in  all, 
and  the  bed  be  undefiled  "  (Heb.  xiii.  i — 4) ;  "  If  ye  fulfil 
the  royal  law  according  to  the  Scriptures, '  Thou  shalt  love 
thy  neighbour  as  thyself,'  ye  do  well "  (James  ii.  8) ; 
"  Let  none  of  you  suffer  as  a  murderer,  or  as  a  thief,  or 
as  an  evil  doer,  or  as  a  busybody  in  other  men's  matters  " 
(i  Peter  iv.  15) ;  "Giving  all  diligence,  add  to  your  faith 
courage,  and  to  courage  knowledge,  and  to  knowledge 
temperance,  and  to  temperance  patience,  and  to  patience 
godhness,  and  to  godliness  brotherly  kindness,  and  to 
brotherly  kindness  charity"  (2  Peter  i.  5 — 7);  "This 
commandment  have  we  from  Him,  that  he  that  loveth 
God  love  his  brother  also"  (i  John  iv.  21);  "Follow 
not  that  which  is  evil,  but  that  which  is  good  "  (3  John 
11).  We  have  selected,  almost  at  random,  these  verses 
from  Epistles  which  set  forth  in  its  fulness  the  Christian 
system,  of  which  system  some  men  say  that  it  is  an 
invention  of  credulous  enthusiasts.  Surely  the  description 
must  be  incorrect,  the  accusation  undeserved  ! 

We  need  pursue  this  examination  no  longer.     Even 
should  we  leave  out  of  question  the  power  of  Christianity 


"J 6     Christianity  not  the  Invention  of  Impostors 

as  displayed  in  the  reformation  and  sanctification  of  in- 
numerable hearts  and  lives  of  men ;  even  if  we  put  on 
one  side  the  evidences  which  might  be  adduced  from 
the  cosmopolitan  action  of  Christianity  in  every  land 
throughout  successive  generations,  there  is  enough  evi- 
dence in  the  aspect  of  the  question  which  we  have  been 
considering  to  satisfy  us,  that,  whatever  other  cause  may 
be  assigned  for  the  existence  of  Christianity,  it  is  impos- 
sible to  accept  the  statement  that  it  is  the  invention  of 
credulous  enthusiasts. 

Let  us  then  turn  to  the  remaining  supposition  with 
which  we  have  to  deal.  There  are  men  who  say  that 
Christianity  is  a  gigantic  fraud,  the  invention  of  impostors. 
The  upright  man  is  pained  whenever,  even  for  lawful 
ends,  he  seems  to  be  what  he  is  not.  Crooked  ways 
and  lying  subterfuges  are  repulsive  to  him ;  and  if  there 
be  a  dictum  which  more  than  another  angers  him,  it  is 
that  "  the  end  sanctifies  the  means."  In  the  sphere  of 
moral  action  he  agrees  with  the  saying  of  Burns, 

*' An  honest  man's  the  noblest  work  of  God." 

Such  an  one  will  have  nothing  to  do  with  forgery  of 
history,  with  falsehood  as  to  persons,  places,  documents,  or 
doctrines.  An  impostor  is  the  antithesis  of  all  this.  He 
prefers  crooked  methods,  even  when  direct  courses  would 
equally  serve  his  purpose.  He  uses  the  truth  only  when 
a  lie  would  be  too  dangerous.  To  seem  to  be  what  he  is, 
is  the  supreme  misery  to  which  he  will  descend  only  when  it 
is  impossible  any  longer  for  him  to  seem  what  he  is  not. 
In  such  a  man  falsehood  will  cause  no  blush,  and  even 
that  feeling  in  his  heart  which  is  the  substitute  for  shame 
will  be  excited  only  when  his  lie  is  detected.  He  holds 
that  while  a  blunder  is  worse   than  a   crime,  and  dis- 


Or  of  Credulous  Enthusiasts.  'jj 

honesty  preferable  to  virtue,  the  only  really  reprehensible 
thing  is  to  be  detected  in  his  wrong  doing. 

Whatever  may  have  been  the  starting-point  in  his 
downward  career,  he  has  come  to  the  level  where  moral 
sense  is  perverted,  the  conscience  gagged,  and  all  those 
grander  aspirations  of  man  which  look  upward  and  seek 
high  ends  have  been  dwarfed,  blinded,  or  strangled. 

Let  it  not  be  replied  that  this  picture  is  too  dark,  that 
a  less  deep  iniquity  will  suffice  for  the  work  contemplated 
of  forging  the  Gospels  or  inventing  the  Jesus  of  Chris- 
tianity ;  for  in  truth  the  difficulties  in  his  way  are  so 
many,  the  dangers  of  detection  so  abounding,  conflicting 
things  to  be  reconciled  and  put  into  shape  so  numberless, 
and  the  things  to  be  burlesqued  so  sacred,  that  only  a 
chief  of  impostors,  in  whom  all  fear  and  shame  and 
right  feeling  are  dead,  would  dare  the  difficult  task  which 
his  ambitipn  or  his  cupidity  might  suggest.  If  the 
Christian  system  be  the  invention  of  impostors,  those 
impostors  are  men  before  whom  all  the  lesser  impostors 
of  the  world  may  well  hide  their  faces  in  envy  and 
admiration. 

If  it  be  considered  what  were  the  difficulties  in  the 
way  of  the  supposed  work  of  inventing  Christianity,  and 
how  many  were  the  chances  of  failure,  it  must  be  con- 
fessed that  all  probability  is  against  the  supposition  that 
Christianity  is  not  historically  true. 

All  which  has  been  said  in  previous  passages  of  this 
lecture  as  to  the  difficulty  of  keeping  up  consistency 
of  statement,  when  the  invented  history  touches  so  many 
points  in  geography,  topography,  history,  and  chronology, 
is  applicable  in  the  case  now  under  consideration.  So 
also  are  all  references  to  minutiae  of  political,  religious, 
lingual,  domestic,  and  climatic  peculiarity.     These   re- 


78     Christianity  not  the  Inventiojt  of  Impostors 

iiiarks  become  more  forcible  when  we  call  to  mind  that 
if  the  Gospels  be  the  work  of  impostors,  they  are  not  the 
impostors  of  this  century  or  any  century  later  than  the 
first.  The  books  which  we  have  as  our  Bible  now  have 
been  in  existence  since  a  period  very  close  to  the  time 
when  the  political  and  historical  combinations  therein 
revealed  were  existing.  It  is  not  the  case  of  a  body  of 
competent  scholars  sitting  down  in  the  nineteenth  cen- 
tury, collecting  around  them  the  libraries  of  books  now 
existing,  which  would  instruct  them  in  the  history,  poli- 
tical combination,  linguistic  condition,  and  locomotive 
facilities  of  the  first  century;  and  then,  taking  a  complete 
view  of  the  whole,  inventing  a  history  which  should 
touch  all  these  things,  combine  them  accurately  in  one 
narrative,  and  present  to  the  eye  of  the  most  acute  and 
unfriendly  critics  a  picture  in  which  the  sharpest  gaze 
could,  at  the  most,  detect  only  a  questionable  tint  or 
form  here  and  there  out  of  the  hundreds  of  forms  in  all 
colours  standing  out  on  the  canvas. 

The  invention  of  the  Gospel  history,  and  the  con- 
sistent connexion  therewith  of  the  immense  body  of 
dogma,  morality,  and  mental  philosophy  contained  in  the 
historical  books  and  epistles  of  the  Christian  Scriptures, 
would,  even  under  the  conditions  now  supposed,  be  a 
greater  effort  of  human  sagacity,  knowledge,  combina- 
tion, and  invention,  than  any  existing  monument  of 
human  genius. 

How  much  greater  would  be  the  marvel,  if  the  Gospel 
histories,  so  called,  should  have  been  the  invention  of 
any  man  or  any  possible  association  of  men  living  at  the 
period  with  which  those  supposed  histories  deal ! 

Form  any  supposition  possible  as  to  the  persons  who 
invented,  the  places  in  which  they  carried  on  their  im- 


Or  of  Credulous  Enthusiasts.  79 

position,  their  means  of  information,  their  poh'tical, 
linguistic,  and  geographical  knowledge,  and  the  suppo- 
sitions will  prove  unequal  to  the  weight  of  the  Gospel,  if 
it  be  an  imposture. 

If  the  writers,  whoever  they  may  be,  do  but  deal  with 
invented  personages,  and  have  but  imagined  the  endless 
series  of  incidents  which  the  Christian  books  record, 
they  must  have  exposed  themselves  to  detection  at  ten 
thousand  points. 

Consider  with  what  variouF  authors  the  accounts  must 
agree,  and  by  what  an  immense  series  of  facts,  supersti- 
tions, national  and  sectional  views,  transitory  notions 
and  permanent  monuments,  the  accounts  may  be  tested. 

To  mention  only  a  few  books  still  extant  and  avail- 
able for  refutation  of  mistakes  in  the  Christian  writings, 
let  it  be  remembered  that  we  have  the  Hebrew  text  of 
the  Old  Testament,  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch,  the 
Chaldse  Paraphrasts.  the  Targums,  the  Greek  version 
called  the  Septuagint,  the  writings  of  Flavins  Josephus, 
and  of  Philo  the  Jew.  Would  it  be  possible  for  an  ideal 
Jewish  character  to  be  imagined  and  to  be  described  as 
thinking,  speaking,  acting,  quoting  from  existing  books, 
dealing  with  the  superstitions  of  those  around  him,  and 
referring  to  the  history  of  the  past  again  and  again,  and 
yet  to  make  no  slips,  and  lay  the  invention  open  to  no 
well-founded  animadversions  ? 

Or  take  another  list  of  historians,  politicians,  natural- 
ists, and  poets,  still  remaining,  whose  works  deal  with 
the  countries,  incidents,  climates,  superstitions,  theolo- 
gies, moralities,  and  political  conditions  which  the 
Christian  books  deal  with  more  or  less  intimately  : 
Herodotus,  Plato,  Livy,  Aristotle,  Virgil,  Horace,  Cicero, 
Caesar,    Lucretius,    Juvenal,    Tacitus,    Pliny,    Plautus, 


8o     Christianity  not  the  Tnvejttion  of  Impostors 

Sallust,  Cornelius  Nepos,  Strabo,  Xenephon,  Suetonius, 
Martial. 

The  chances  of  detection  at  the  period  when  the 
books  were  undoubtedly  committed  to  the  world  were 
numberless,  and  those  chances  have  been  multiplied 
with  the  advance  of  human  knowledge  and  the  collec- 
tion of  books  in  the  immense  hbraries  of  modern 
days. 

The  historical  truth  of  the  books  of  the  Christian 
Scriptures  alone  has  saved  them  from  complete  refutation. 

Suppose  that  the  Gospels  are  the  truthful  records  of 
events,  and  the  Epistles  the  actual  letters  which  they  pro- 
fess to  be — that  the  writers  were  recording  things  which 
had  passed  under  their  own  observation  in  the  various 
countries  and  places  they  mention,  and  all  is  consistent 
and  satisfactory;  but  if  we  reject  this  solution  of  the 
matter,  because  there  is  a  miraculous  element  in  the  history, 
and  a  Divine  person  revealed,  we  propose  a  problem,  the 
solution  of  which  would  necessitate  something  contrary 
to  all  probabilities  and  possibilities,  something  against 
nature,  and  not  like  a  miracle,  only  above  nature.  We 
may  reject  the  marvel  of  the  incarnation  and  the 
miracles  of  the  Gospels,  but  we  can  do  so  only  by 
credulously  accepting  suppositions  far  more  difficult  of 
belief  than  are  the  facts  which  they  are  used  to  dis- 
credit. 

In  dealing,  however,  with  the  supposition  of  imposture, 
we  are  met  with  moral  difficulties  which  are  as  much 
greater  than  the  historical  and  literary  difficulties,  as  they 
are  greater  than  the  difficulties  besetting  the  verity  of  the 
Gospel  history. 

If  one  characteristic  more  than  another  pervades  the 
acting  and  teaching  of  the  Gospel,  it  is  that  of  moral 


Or  of  Credulous  Enthusiasts.  8 1 

goodness.  Meanness,  hypocrisy,  double-dealing,  pro- 
fession of  godliness,  without  corresponding  conduct, 
neglect  of  the  relative  duties  on  which  the  well-being  of 
families  and  communities  depend,  evil  thoughts,  foolish 
words,  impure  actions, — these  are  everywhere  condemned. 

Moreover,  the  morality  of  the  New  Testament  is  not 
only  in  accordance  with  those  eternal  principles  of  right, 
which  are  so  obvious  that  nearly  all  thinking  men  (not 
biassed  and  corrupted  by  vicious  living)  have  recognized 
them  ;  but  in  not  a  few  cases,  where  evil  habits  and  cor- 
rupt indulgences  had  brought  in  lower  standards  and 
more  facile  rules  of  conduct,  the  teaching  of  the  Gospels 
and  Epistles  sets  up  again  the  true  canon,  and  recals 
men  to  the  simplicity  of  a  good  life.  Let  any  opponent 
of  Christianity,  who  can  do  so,  point  out  wherein  the 
moral  teaching  of  the  Christian  books  is  such  as  might 
reasonably  be  expected  from  immoral  impostors. 

But  again,  imposture  is  an  essentially  selfish  thing. 
Men  seek  to  deceive  because  they  have  in  view  some 
selfish  gratification,  some  coveted  gain,  some  advantage 
centering  in  self 

Is  this  characteristic  evident  in  Christianity  ?  Is  not 
New  Testament  teaching  essentially  unselfish  ?  Does  it 
not  everywhere  propose  the  ignorant,  sinful,  poor,  out- 
cast, and  perishing,  as  the  objects  of  attention  and  con- 
cern ?  Does  it  not  constantly  propose  the  advantage  of 
others  as  an  object  to  be  pursued?  Does  it  not  bid 
us  feed  the  hungry,  clothe  the  naked,  entertain  the 
homeless,  teach  the  ignorant,  sympathise  with  the  sor- 
rowing, rejoice  with  the  glad,  and  in  all  things  to  bear 
one  another's  burdens  ? 

Christianity  is  the  very  beginning  and  basis  of  a 
nationality  wide  as  the  human  race,  and  all-embracing  as 

6 


82     Christianity  not  the  Invention  of  Impostors 

the  atmosphere  which  envelopes  the  whole  earth.  It  is 
the  one  system  existing  among  men  which  gives  the 
higher  races  of  men  a  benevolent  interest  in  those  of  a 
lower  civilization  and  a  coarser  type,  and  regards  the 
degraded  Hotentot  as  brother  to  the  Anglo-Saxon. 

And,. to  take  another  point  of  view,  when  the  princi- 
ples of  the  Gospel  are  represented  as  wrought  out  in 
human  lives,  what  kind  of  men  are  the  inventions  of  the 
supposed  impostors?  What  are  the  probabilities  of 
Paul,  Peter,  John,  Barnabas,  Philemon,  Onesimus,  Gaius, 
being  the  creation  of  deceit  or  imposture? 

But,  above  all,  how  does  the  character  of  Jesus  Him- 
self fall  in  with  this  supposition  ?  As  a  boy  He  grew  in 
favour  with  God  and  man.  Although  conscious  of  His 
Divine  nature,  He  was  obedient  to  His  mother  and  re- 
puted father.  Among  His  circle  of  brothers  and  sisters 
and  cousins  He  grew  to  manhood  with  no  stain  upon 
His  character.  In  fulfilling  all  righteousness,  He  con- 
descends  to  receive  the  seal  of  discipleship  from  His 
own  servant,  John.  After  forty  days  of  fasting,  He 
would  not  satisfy  His  hunger  in  any  questionable  oi 
irregular  way.  When  tempted  to  sin,  He  resisted  suc- 
cessfully the  allurements  addressed  to  His  flesh  and  will 
and  soul.  While  continually  exercising  miraculous 
power  on  behalf  of  others.  He  suffered  hunger  and  thirst 
and  weariness,  and  had  not  where  to  lay  His  head.  So 
high  and  pure  and  loving  were  His  words,  that  even  His 
t enemies  confessed,  "Never  man  spake  hke  this  man,'* 
and  they  wondered  at  the  gracious  words  which  proceeded 
out  of  His  mouth.  He  healed  the  broken  heart  of  the 
widow  by  restoring  her  son  to  life.  He  comforted  the 
mourning  Jaims  by  calling  back  his  daughter  from  death. 
He  poured  sunlight  once  again  on  the  darkened  home 


u 


Or  of  Credulous  Enthusiasts.  83 

of  Martha  and  Mary  by  calling  back  Lazarus  from  the 
corruption  of  the  grave. 

To  the  blind  He  gave  the  glorious  outer  world,  with 
the  faces  of  their  dear  ones.  On  the  ears  of  the  deaf  He 
poured  the  music  of  breezes,  and  voices,  and  song.  He 
gave  to  the  weak  feet  strength,  to  the  dumb  the  power  of 
speech;  health  to  the  sick,  food  to  the  hungry,  and 
cleansing  to  the  lepers.  His  days  were  consumed  in 
labour,  and  His  nights  in  prayer.  To  His  patience  we 
can  trace  no  limits,  to  His  gentleness  no  bounds,  and  to 
His  love  no  measure.  His  life  is  filled  with  evidences  of 
darkness  dispelled  from  human  souls,  of  ignorance  cast 
out,  that  the  wisdom  of  God  might  find  a  place  and 
throne ;  of  the  impure  sanctified,  and  the  worldly  elevated 
to  the  dignity  of  a  God-fearing  life ;  of  proud  sinners 
humbled,  and  trembling  sinners  comforted ;  of  a  life  of 
marvellous  consecration,  closed  by  a  fitting  death  of  self- 
sacrifice.  Other  records  there  are  also,  of  life  purchased 
by  His  death,  peace  won  by  His  soul-agony,  liberty 
secured  by  His  bonds,  sin  dying  in  His  death,  and  souls 
living  in  His  resurrection. 

If  this  character  be  an  invention,  it  is  utterly  incompre- 
hensible as  the  creation  of  immoral  men.  They  could 
not  have  conceived  it,  nor  would  they  have  cared  to  invent 
it.  Every  line  of  the  history  would  become  the  severest 
self-condemnation,  every  incident  a  lash  on  their  own 
shoulders,  every  parable,  appeal,  reproof,  a  scorpion's 
sting,  which  would  find  out  any  assailable  and  sensitive 
point  left  in  their  diseased  conscience. 

Let  us  consider  one  more  aspect  of  the  matter,  The 
Gospel  history  has  been  preached  in  many  lands,  and 
has  been  addressed  to  all  classes  and  orders  of  men.  It 
IS  a  fact,  that  from  age  to  age,  in  countless  instances,  the 


84     Christianity  not  the  Invention  of  Impostors 

teaching  of  Christianity  has  aroused  the  conscience  of 
men,  begotten  in  them  a  sense  of  dissatisfaction  and 
need,  awakened  even  an  agony  of  desire  for  purity, 
hoUness,  and  renewal,  and  has  led  them  to  make 
sustained  efforts  to  obtain  those  good  things  which  they 
desired.  It  is  a  fact  also,  known  to  multitudes,  that 
within  the  limits  of  the  books  of  Holy  Scripture  these 
awakened  and  hungering  souls  have  found  the  instruction, 
enlightenment,  purification,  and  satisfaction  which  they 
needed.  And  it  is  no  less  certainly  true  that  the  uniform 
result  has  been  that  such  persons  have  proved  by  words 
and  deeds  enemies  to  all  immorality.  Herein  is  a  strange 
paradox  on  the  supposition  that  Christianity  is  the  inven- 
tion of  impostors  ! 

We  conclude,  then,  that  Christianity  is  no  such  inven- 
tion. We  assert  that  it  is  impossible  for  the  Gospel 
history  to  have  been  the  work  of  impostors ;  and  we 
assert  also,  that  it  cannot  be  the  creation  of  credulous 
enthusiasts.  If  these  two  suppositions  be  rejected,  what 
other  remains,  but  that  Christianity  is  true  ? 

We  have  thus  far  repelled  an  attack.  We  now  make 
an  onward  movement,  and  challenge  men  to  point  out 
from  the  Gospels  what  are  the  supposed  evidences  that 
they  are  fables  and  inventions.  The  experiment  has 
been  made,  we  know,  over  and  over  again;  and  if  any  one 
be  inclined  to  try  afresh,  he  will  but  add  another  to  the 
mutually  destructive  schools  of  criticisms,  each  one  of 
which  has  been  slain  by  its  fellow,  leaving  the  faith  of  the 
Gospel  mighty  as  ever  in  its  power  over  men  for  sancti- 
fication  and  peace. 

The  Gospel  is  an  anvil  which  has  worn  out  many 
hammers,  a  rock  which  has  rolled  back  ten  thousand 
advancing  waves  throughout  ages  of  tempest,  a  river  oi 


Or  of  Credulous  Enthusiasts.  85 

water  of  life,  which  all  the  dams  of  unbelief  and  secularism 
have  failed  to  stop  in  its  life-bearing  and  beneficent 
course. 

We  commend  Christianity  to  the  attention  of  men 
because  it  is  true,  because  the  Scriptures  of  the  New 
Covenant  which  contain  it,  and  the  Scriptiures  of  the  Old 
Covenant,  of  which  it  is  the  logical  completion  and  natu- 
ral outcome,  are  evidenced  as  from  God.  All  the  evidences 
by  which  any  matter  can  be  proved  testify  to  Christianity. 
Evidences  from  history,  antiquities,  national  customs, 
geography,  and  topography,  strengthen  it  on  every  side. 
The  work  of  Jews  and  heathens,  the  attacks  of  enemies, 
and  the  apologies  of  friends,  bear  testimony  to  our  Chris- 
tian Scriptures.  The  buried  marvels  of  Nineveh,  dis- 
entombed after  long  ages  ;  the  silent  catacombs,  opened 
after  many  centuries ;  the  awful  chambers  of  the  pyramids, 
penetrated  in  these  later  years,  have  all  voices  testifying 
to  the  historic  verity  of  the  Bible.  The  rock  inscriptions 
of  the  Sinaitic  valleys,  the  discovered  dwellings  and 
temples  and  stones  of  Moab  and  Bashan,  are  eloquent 
with  varied  evidences.  The  cherished  traditions  of  the 
Nestorians,  the  names  of  passes  and  mountains,  and  for- 
tresses in  Affghanistan,  and  the  documents,  habits,  and 
history  of  the  Jewish  colony  discovered  in  the  interior  of 
China,  are  all  witnessing  to  the  reality  and  consistency  of 
Bible  narratives.  In  Palestine  and  Egypt  and  Syria, 
each  stone  has  a  voice,  each  mountain  an  echo,  each 
stream  a  melody,  each  city  a  history,  each  village  a 
memory;  and  all  proclaim  that  the  Gospel  records  are 
tme. 

The  history  of  Greece  and  Rome,  Chaldsea  and  Persia, 
of  Tyre  and  Sidon,  Judaea  and  Egypt,  written  by  un- 
believers, such  as  Volney  and  Gibbon,  is  at  times  ex- 


S6     Christianity  not  the  Invention  of  Impostors 

pressed  in  terms  which  approximate  wonderfully  to  the 
words  of  prophetic  Scripture ;  the  history  as  written 
proleptically  in  the  Bible,  and  the  same  history  as  written 
by  men  who  hated  and  sought  to  discredit  the  Bible,  so 
strangely  according,  that  the  human  history  might  be 
taken  for  the  Divine  prophecy,  with  but  the  tenses 
changed  by  the  "  Vav  conversive"  of  time  from  the  future 
to  the  past. 

So  long  as  the  Jordan  overflows  its  banks  at  harvest 
from  the  melting  of  the  snows  on  Lebanon,  so  long  as  the 
waters  of  Gennesaret  lave  the  ruins  of  Capernaum  and 
the  hill-sides  of  Gadara,  so  long  as  the  Tigris  and 
Euphrates  flow  by  Nineveh  and  Babylon,  and  the  Nile 
pours  down  her  fertilizing  waters  through  Goshen  to  the 
sea,  so  long  as  Kishon  waters  the  foot  of  Carmel,  and 
Abana  and  Pharpar  make  the  plains  of  Damascus  the 
garden  of  Syria,  so  long  will  the  waters  of  earth  make 
harmony  to  the  song  that  the  Lord,  even  the  mighty 
God,  has  spoken  to  us  in  the  books  of  Moses,  by  the 
pen  of  Samuel,  the  harp  of  David,  the  tears  of  Jeremiah, 
the  odes  of  Isaiah,  and  the  visions  of  Ezekiel ; — so  long 
will  men  confess  that  the  four  Evangelists  and  the 
writers  of  the  Epistles  are  true  witnesses  and  inspired 
teachers. 

And  what  of  the  voices  of  the  mountains  ?  Who  can 
know  the  voices  of  Horeb  and  Hor,  of  Carmel  and  Sirion, 
of  Lebanon  and  Ararat,  of  Tabor  and  Olivet,  and  yet 
deny  that  the  l^ible  is  of  God  ? 

The  Bible  is  indeed  of  God — omniscient,  eternal,  good; 
and  not  of  men — credulous,  dishonest,  or  mad.  And 
because  it  is  of  God  it  demands  of  every  man  that  obedi- 
ence which  the  creature  should  render  to  his  Creator, 
Preserver,  Redeemer,  Friend. 


Or  of  Credulous  Enthusiasts.  87 

The  words  of  the  Lord  are  pure  words,  as  silver  tried 
seven  times  in  a  furnace  of  fire.  The  earth  and  all  the 
things  which  are  therein  shall  be  burned  up,  but  the 
word  of  the  Lord  endureth  for  ever. 


THE  FACTS   OF   CHRISTIANITY 
HISTORICALLY  TRUE. 

BY 

B.  HARRIS  COWPER. 


Christianity  Historically  True, 


THE  manufacture  of  history  is  by  no  means  a  modern 
art,  but  is  one  which  has  been  cultivated  from  an 
early  period.  The  objects  in  view  have  been  political, 
religious,  national,  or  personal ;  and  it  must  be  owned 
that  Jew  and  Pagan,  Mahommedan  and  Christian,  have 
practised  it  with  more  or  less  success.  The  science  of 
criticism  is  now,  however,  so  developed,  that  the  true 
character  of  fictitious  and  of  semi-fictitious  records  can  be 
ascertained  with  much  precision.  Hence,  while  it  is 
difficult  to  uphold  a  false  history  or  to  launch  one,  it 
is  a  hopeless  task  to  undertake  the  destruction  of  a  true 
one.  Limited  and  temporary  success  is  all  that  the  most 
fortunate  can  expect.  The  forgeries  of  long  centuries  and 
various  nations  have  nearly  all  succumbed  to  the  search- 
ing tests  applied  by  modern  skill,  and  have  taken  their 
true  place  in  the  literature  of  the  world. 

Among  the  books  which  have  been  most  severely  ex- 
perimented on,  we  must  rank  the  collection  of  documents 
popularly  known  as  the  New  Testament.  This  work  may 
be  fairly  subjected  to  criticism  as  claiming  to  be  historical, 
although  its  contents  comprise  epistles,  prophecies,  and 
rules  of  lite,  as  well  as  narratives  in  the  ordinary  sense  of 


92  Christianity  Historically  True. 

the  word.  The  prophecies,  rules  of  life,  and  epistles 
alike  profess  to  have  an  historical  basis  or  framework,  and 
must  therefore  stand  or  fall  with  the  rest.  As  for  the 
narratives  proper,  they  include  supernatural  occurrences, 
as  well  as  others,  and  the  supernatural  elements  are  so 
incorporated  with  the  human  story,  as  it  may  be  termed, 
that  we  cannot  overlook  them.  The  supernatural 
features  have  to  be  subjected  to  special  investigations, 
which  form  no  part  of  the  object  of  this  lecture ;  and 
yet  their  position  is  such  that  any  conclusion  respecting 
the  record  they  are  interwoven  with  will  affect  their 
credibility. 

In  recent  times  several  attempts  have  been  made  to 
disprove  the  historical  character  of  the  fundamental 
records  of  Christianity,  and  men  are  to  be  found  who 
doubt  whether  the  New  Testament  can  fairly  put  in  a 
clciim  to  be  a  history  in  the  proper  sense  of  the  word. 
The  bases  of  these  doubts  are  mostly  theoretical.  It  is 
assumed,  for  instance,  that  the  New  Testament  has  not 
that  amount  of  literary  corroboration  which  a  genuine 
record  ought  to  have.  It  is  assumed  that  there  is  an 
insuperable  obstacle  to  credibility  in  the  supernatural 
elements  of  the  book  j  science,  we  are  told,  cannot  recog- 
nise the  supernatural  as  a  reality,  and  therefore  its  appear- 
ance in  a  record  renders  its  rejection  necessary.  Besides, 
we  are  reminded  of  the  tendency  of  men  to  frame 
narratives  which  are  mythical ;  and  so  powerful  and 
general  is  this  tendency  that  we  have  many  examples 
of  mythical  stories  developed  out  of  facts  which  are 
altogether  transformed,  and  m.ade  to  serve  purposes  to 
which  they  stand  in  no  natural  relation.  Even  when 
there  is  an  historical  person  as  a  nucleus  for  a  myth, 
and  he  is   the  prominent  figure  in  it,  everything  is  so 


Christianity  HHitorically  True.  93 

exaggerated,  that  the  result  is  a  literary  fiction.  From 
such  a  fiction  it  is  next  to  impossible  to  extract  the 
meagre  remains  of  history.  Take  for  example  the  cases 
of  Zoroaster  Krishna,  Buddha,  or  ApoUonius  of  Tyana. 
How  hard  it  is  to  separate  and  bring  to  light  the  truth 
concerning  these  personages  !  With  these  examples  the 
record  of  Jesus  and  His  apostles  has  been  compared,  and 
like  conclusions  have  been  drawn  from  it.  Zealous  and 
imaginative  men  have  filled  in  the  imperfect  outline,  have 
given  substance  to  mere  shadow,  and  have  incorporated 
opinions  and  suppositions  which  belong  to  a  later 
age! 

To  all  these  theories  we  object.  We  believe  the  New 
Testament  has  all  the  corroboration  required  by  the 
nature  of  the  case  to  justify  our  strongest  faith.  We 
believe  that  the  supernatural  features  of  the  record  are 
not  disproved  by  the  aamission  that  science  cannot  deal 
with  them,  and  we  shall  continue  to  believe,  until  it  is 
demonstrated  that  science  has  a  right  to  deal  directly 
with  them.  Nor  shall  we  fail  to  bear  in  mind  that 
science  itself  must  recognise  a  great  many  essential 
elements  of  the  book,  even  when  it  turns  aside  from  the 
supernatural.  Our  own  conviction  is,  that  science  is 
unscientific  when  it  concludes  against  the  supernatural, 
though  we  admit  that  it  cannot  submit  the  supernatural 
to  ordinary  tests.  The  truth  is,  that  man  can  believe  in 
the  supernatural,  is  prone  to  believe  it,  and  does  believe 
it,  and  thierefore  even  science  must  reckon  this  faith 
among  the  phenomena  of  human  nature.  He  would  be 
a  bold  man  who  said  that  this  feature  of  our  constitution 
is  a  defect,  and  that  herein  our  race  is  so  framed  as 
almost  universally  to  believe  a  lie. 

With  regard  to  the  mythical  hypothesis,  it  seems  that 


94  Christianity  Historically  True, 

the  best  refutation  of  its  application  to  the  New  Testa- 
ment will  be  to  show  that  there  is  no  room  for  it  in  the 
case.     It  is  excluded  by  the  structure  and  position  of 
the  book,  and  by  the  conditions  amid  which  the  Christian 
Church  was  propagated  and  established  in  the  world. 
The  demolition  of  all  mythical  theories  is  effected  by  the 
same  process  as  that  which  destroys  the  objection  from 
want  of  evidence.     This  work  will  be  the  chief  aim  of 
the  remainder  of  the  present  lecture.     The  attempt  to 
weaken  the  history  by  the  allegation  that  science  rejects 
the  supernatural  no  further  concerns  us  on  this  occasion, 
although   we  must  remember   the  historical  conditions 
under  which  the  supernatural  facts  of  the  New  Testament 
appear.     These  conditions,  be  it  observed,  are  altogether 
favourable  to  our  faith  in  the  actual  occurrence  of  the 
said  supernatural  events,  because  we  can  plead  the  testi- 
mony we  have  for  all  facts,  whether  supernatural  or  not. 

An  examination  of  the  New  Testament  will  show  that 
its  facts  are  meant  to  be  taken  as  historically  true. 

The  fomi  of  the  book  is  real  and  historical.  There 
are  four  memoirs  of  Jesus  Christ ;  we  call  them  Gospels. 
There  is  a  record  of  the  actions  of  the  leading  disciples 
of  Jesus,  after  His  departure  from  the  world  ;  this  we  call 
the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  There  are  twenty-one  epistles, 
avowedly  written  to  actual  persons,  relating  to  real  cir- 
cumstances, and  emanating  from  men  who  lived  in  the 
first  age  of  the  Church.  Finally,  there  is  a  book  called 
the  Apocalypse  or  Revelation,  which  exhibits  indications 
sufficiently  clear  to  justify  our  assertion  that  it  claims  to 
be  associated  with  the  other  writings,  historically,  at  any 
rate.  There  are  internal  marks  about  these  books  and  . 
documents  which  show  that,  though  not  written  by  one 
man,  nor  in  one  place,  they  were  composed  in  a  certain 


Christianity  Historically  True.  95 

period,  and  by  a  class  of  men  who  professed  to  believe 
and  uphold  the  Christian  religion.  If  these  documents, 
which  are  so  real  in  form  and  substance,  are  merely 
works  of  imagination,  the  conspiracy  or  accident  which 
produced  them  is  as  inexplicable  as  their  silent  accept- 
ance everywhere  by  the  Church.  Their  outward  shape, 
their  course  of  thought,  and  their  grammatical  forms 
and  idioms  are  as  purely  and  perfectly  historical  as  the 
writings  of  Plautus  and  Cicero,*  Virgil  and  Horace, 
Xenophon  and  Demosthenes,  Philo  or  Josephus;  nay, 
they  are  as  purely  and  perfectly  historical  as  the  works 
of  Chaucer  and  Shakespeare,  Milton  and  Johnson. 
Talk  of  literary  corroboration !  no  documents  in  exist- 
ence have  it  in  a  higher  degree  than  the  New  Testament 
in  its  form  and  structure,  from  beginning  to  end.  This 
venerable  volume  could  not  have  been  written  in  any 
age  but  that  to  which  we  assign  it.  Its  Hebrew  idioms, 
its  Syriac  phrases,  its  Alexandrian  diction,  and  its 
Roman  tinge,  all  point  to  one  source  and  to  one  time. 
Thus  we  establish  its  claim  to  be  accepted  as  an  historical 
monument,  and  fix  the  era  to  which  it  belongs. 

We  may  go  further  with  our  inquiries,  and  the  result 
will  still  be  favourable  to  the  book.  Taking  the  facts 
as  they  stand,  we  see  at  once  that  they  belong  to  a 
known  historical  age.  The  course  of  the  world's  history 
is  not  absolutely  unknown,  and  we  can  usually  decide 
whether  a  record  relates  to  a  fabulous  or  to  an  historical 
age.  Sometimes  there  are  difficulties,  as  to  the  precise 
chronological  position  of  a  work.  It  is  so  with  Homer, 
and  the  same  is  true  of  many  of  the  books  of  the 
Hindoos  and  the  Chinese,  not  to  mention  others.  A 
collection  of  opinions  respecting  the  age  of  Homer  and 
the  date  and  character  of  the  events  he  puts  on  record 


9^  Christianity  Historically  True. 

in  the  Iliad,  would  show  diversities  of  the  most  startling 
character.  As  for  the  Hindoo  books,  few  indeed  of  the 
great  Sanskrit  writings  can  be  said  to  belong  to  an  his- 
torical age.  The  most  contradictory  judgments  are 
formed  as  to  the  date  of  their  composition,  some  placing 
them  two  thousand  years  later  than  others.  Often,  too, 
the  form  and  scene  are  not  at  all  historical,  and  all  the 
powers  of  critics  are  employed  in  vain  attempts  to  settle 
the  age  even  to  which  they  profess  to  relate.  Illustra- 
tions are  easily  accessible,  showing  the  truth  of  what  has 
been  advanced,  and  its  applicability  to  numerous  other 
so-called  records.  And,  be  it  noted,  that  in  spite  of 
these  tremendous  difficulties,  not  a  few  of  these  books 
are  accepted  as  embodying  historical  facts.  The  New 
Testament  scene  does  not  lie  in  some  misty  undefined 
portion  of  time,  the  place  of  which  cannot  be  ascertained, 
but  in  a  period  as  historical  and  as  recognisable  as  that 
of  Queen  Elizabeth  or  Charles  the  Second. 

The  geography  of  the  New  Testament  is  historical. 
It  includes  empires  and  kingdoms,  provinces  and  cities, 
mountains  and  oceans,  rivers  and  valleys,  which  are  all 
real  and  correctly  indicated.  The  smallest  villages 
equally  with  the  largest  cities  are  accurately  represented 
and  located.  The  progress  of  modern  discovery  has  only 
tended  to  confirm  the  book  in  its  minutest  details. 
This  is  not  usual  with  mythical  and  purely  fabulous 
writings,  with  which,  indeed,  the  rule  is  quite  the  oppo- 
site. The  test  is  one  which  cannot  be  borne  by  the 
memoirs  of  Apollonius  of  Tyana,  any  more  than  by  the 
legends  of  the  Hindoo  Krishna.  So  far,  then,  the  New 
Testament  is  historical,  and  we  can  appeal  to  it  as  a 
genuine  authority  from  first  to  last  in  this  respect.  Not 
a  single  erroneous  detail  in  its  geography  and  topography 


Christianity  Historically  True.  97 

has  been  discovered,  while  it  has  furnished  a  clue  for  the 
recovery  of  long  forgotten  sites.  The  importance  of  this 
whole  argument  will  be  best  illustrated  by  reference  to 
a  single  branch  of  it,  namely,  political  geography.  During 
the  first  century  various  changes  took  place  in  the  poli- 
tical divisions  of  countries  included  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment narratives.  The  imperial  power  of  a  Caesar, 
the  caprice  of  a  Herod,  and  the  favour  of  a  state  officer, 
equally  sufficed  to  bring  about  the  transfer  of  the  inhabi- 
tants of  a  region  from  one  governor  to  another,  and  to 
introduce  a  new  jurisdiction,  or  to  cancel  an  old  one.  In 
the  case  of  cities,  special  privileges  were  enjoyed  by 
some ;  thus,  for  instance,  one  was  called  a  metropoHs, 
and  another  a  colony,  while  peculiar  distinctions  were 
borne  by  men  in  power,  from  the  highest  to  the  lowest. 
All  these  topics  come  before  the  notice  of  the  student 
who  criticises  the  Kqw  Testament,  and  usually  his  faith 
is  confirmed — it  is  never  shaken  by  the  result.  The 
casual  allusions  of  authentic  writers,  the  technical  terms 
on  monuments  of  stone,  and  coins  of  metal,  correspond 
with  the  intimations  of  the  new  Testament  in  so  marvel- 
lous a  way,  that  we  fairly  deduce  an  argument  for  its 
general  historical  character  from  these  incidental  facts. 

Intimately  connected  with  our  object,  also,  is  the 
question  whether  any  fictitious  persons  are  to  be  found 
in  our  New  Testament.  The  author  of  the  so-called 
Life  of  ApoUonius  introduced  fictitious  personages,  and 
in  so  doing  only  did  what  every  writer  of  fiction,  epical, 
dramatic,  or  historical,  from  Homer  to  the  latest  authors 
in  those  branches  of  Hterature,  has  done  and  been  com- 
pelled to  do.  A  work  of  imagination  on  a  large  scale 
with  no  imaginary  characters  would  be  a  unique  specimen 
of  the  creative  faculties.     Now  there  is  not  one  character 

7 


98  Christianity  Historically  True. 

of  the  New  Testament  brought  in  as  historical,  which 
can  be  proved  to  be  anything  else.  There  are  neces- 
sarily some  comparatively  private  individuals,  and  some 
occupying  a  peculiar  position,  regarding  whom  we  know 
no  more  than  this  book  teach.es.  But  there  are  others 
about  whom  we  must  certainly  expect  to  find  some 
account  elsewhere.  The  easiest  method  is  to  select 
ihese  last,  and  to  use  them  as  tests  of  the  accuracy  or 
otherwise  of  the  scriptural  documents.  Our  position  is 
that  the  evangeHsts  and  others  who  wrote  the  New 
Testament,  not  only  bring  in  historical  personages,  but 
correctly  describe  them.  The  royal  family  of  Herod  is 
accurately  introduced,  and  the  personages,  as  well  as  the 
general  designations  of  its  members,  are  without  fault. 
The  fortunes  of  this  family  were  very  varied,  and  its 
inner  history  very  strange,  but  the  evangelical  writers 
louch  in  a  ready  and  accurate  manner  upon  numerous 
details  extending  over  more  than  sixty  years.  The  same 
exemption  from  error  appears  in  the  designations  of  the 
Roman  Emperors,  from  Augustus  Caesar  onwards,  their 
subordinates,  as  Cyrenius,  Pilate,  GaUio,  Felix,  and 
Festus,  Jewish  priests,  and  others.  Even  eminent 
women,  as  Herodias,  Drusilla,  and  Bernice,  are  brought 
forw^ard  in  their  historical  place,  and  with  absolute  pre- 
cision. AVe  might  urge  the  occurrence  even  of  such 
names  as  those  of  Jesus,  James,  and  John  the  Baptist,  all 
of  whom  are  mentioned  by  Josephus.  This  might  be 
done  irrespectively  of  the  famous  passage  {Antiq.  xviii. 
3.  3),  in  which  the  last-named  writer  speaks  at  length  of 
Christ,  because  he  speaks  of  Him  elsewhere  {Antiq.  xx. 
9.  i).  Of  the  testimonies  suppHed  by  Tacitus  and  Sueto- 
nius, by  the  Emperor  Marcus  Antoninus,  and  the  bril- 
liant scoffer,  Lucian  of  Samosata,  this  is  perhaps  not  the 


Christianity  Historically  True.  99 

place  to  discourse  at  length,  though  we  may  refer  to  them. 
In  like  manner  we  do  not  now  insist  on  the  Christian 
witnesses,  though  none  but  a  very  unreasonable  logic 
would  argue  that  they  are  of  no  value. 

Our  survey  is  little  more  than  a  bird's-eye  view,  but  it 
would  be  incomplete  if  we  observed  not  the  substantial 
historical  incidents  which  belong  to  the  general  records 
of  the  time.  Even  the  famous  dispute  respecting  the 
census  or  taxing  under  Cyrenius  is  scarcely,  if  at  all, 
more  than  a  question  as  to  a  date,  and  how  two 
statements  of  one  fact  are  to  be  harmonised  when 
they  seem  to  be  chronologically  different.  The  pro 
blem  has  been  boldly  grappled  with,  and  among  others 
by  professor  Zumpt,  a  German  critic,  with  so  much 
success  that  the  Quartef-ly  Review  for  April,  1S71,  in  an 
article  on  his  labours  exclaims  :  "  Here  is  a  difficulty 
which  but  some  thirty  years  ago  Dr.  Strauss  was  gloating 
over  and  declaring  to  be  entirely  insoluble,  and  now  we 
behold  it  solved.  Here  we  have  another  proof  that  Biblical 
studies  are  not,  as  they  were  once  regarded,  a  stationary 
science,  but,  like  all  other  sciences,  admit  of  progression 
and  increase."  This  is  certainly  not  a  discouraging  cir- 
cumstance, and,  remembering  that  it  does  not  stand 
alone,  leads  us  to  expect  the  removal  of  obscurity,  in 
some  other  cases.  Take  the  statement  in  Acts  xviii.  2, 
that  "Claudius  had  ordered  all  Jews  to  leave  Rome." 
There  is,  we  are  told,  no  certain  testimony  to  that  edict, 
though  it  is  known  that  the  Jews  were  very  severely  dealt 
with  by  other  emperors  in  that  century,  and.  the  occur- 
rence is  very  probable  indeed.  But  there  is  more  than 
this  ;  Suetonius  informs  us  that  "  Claudius  expelled  the 
Jews  from  Rome  for  constantly  rioting,  Christ  prompting 
them   to   it"   {Claud,  xxv.)     Here  we  have  a  distinct 


loo  Christianity  Historically  True. 

affirmation  of  the  fact  that  Claudius  expelled  the  Jews 
from  Rome,  as  we  read  in  the  Acts ;  it  is  coupled,  how- 
ever, with  the  curious  ex])lanation  that  Christ  was  the 
cause  of  their  expulsion.  Perhaps  He  was.  Have  we 
not  her;  a  striking  comment  on  His  own  words,  "  I  am 
come  not  to  send  peace,  but  a  sword  "  ?  The  Jews  at 
Rome,  as  we  understand  Suetonius,  discussed  the 
Messiahship  of  Jesus,  debating  whether  He  was  the 
Christ,  with  so  much  heat  and  vehemence,  that  from 
words  .they  went  to  tumult  and  riot.  This  confusion 
exasperated  the  Emperor,  who,  in  accordance  with  a 
popular  error,  treated  Jews  and  Christians  as  two  sects  of 
one  religon,  and  he  ordered  that  the  Jews  should  not  re- 
main in  Rome.  They  left,  no  doubt,  but  very  likely 
soon  went  back  again. 

On  the  whole  question  of  the  confirmation  of  the 
historical  character  of  the  Nevv  Testament,  Mr.  Lewin, 
the  diligent  author  of  "Fasti  Sacri,"  may  be  here 
quoted.  He  says,  "  When  the  more  closely  I  sift  the 
records  of  that  period,  the  more  at  every  step  I  find  the 
sacred  penmen  confirmed  in  their  most  casual  and 
passing  allusions  to  contemporary  persons  and  ancient 
customs,  I  necessarily  feel  that  my  creed  rests  on  no  in- 
secure foundation,  that  it  is  not  the  cunningly  devised 
fable  of  an  after  age,  but  is  j)art  and  parcel  of  actual 
history.  ...  I  believe  that  many  who  indulge  in 
scepticism,  do  it,  not  from  conviction,  but  from  never 
having  seriously  addressed  their  attention  to  an  inquiry 
into  the  truth."  Mr.  Lewin  speaks  not  without  a  good 
reason  in  the  shape  of  a  volume  of  500  closely  printed 
large  octavo  pages.  He  who  can  refute  the  witnesses 
adduced  in  that  work  will  have  done  much  to  overthrow 
the  historical  claims  of  the  New  Testament.     An  am- 


Christianity  Historically  Trite.  loi 

bitious  and  learned  unbeliever  would  immortalize  himself 
if  he  succeeded  in  destroying  the  testimonies  of  that  one 
book.  But  before  he  attempts  it,  let  the  would-be  de- 
stroyer carefully  consider  what  he  undertakes. 

The  task  of  overthrowing  the  course  of  proofs  upon 
which  we  stake  the  credibility  of  the  New  Testament 
cannot  be  so  easy  as  if  we  addressed  men's  creduUty,  and 
not  their  intelligence.  We  have  no  relics  surrounded 
with  mystery,  and  held  in  reverential  awe.  If  we  showed 
3^ou  the  stone  which  they  exhibit  at  Toulouse,  as  the  one 
which  killed  Stephen,  you  would  not  admit  it  as  a  proof 
of  his  martyrdom.  If  we  took  you  to  Rome,  to  the  Church 
of  St.  Mary  the  Greater,  and  showed  you  the  holy  manger, 
the  cradle,  the  hay,  and  the  swaddHng  clothes,  and  the 
relics  of  five  of  the  holy  Innocents,  you  would  not  look 
on  them  as  weighing  a  grain  in  the  scale  of  evidence.  It 
would  be  labour  lost  to  exhibit  to  you  the  milk  of  the 
blessed  Virgin,  the  wood  of  the  cross,  the  shroud  in 
which  the  dead  Christ  was  wrapped.  You  would  shrug 
your  shoulders  at  the  relics  of  Sts.  Peter  and  Paul,  Philip, 
James,  and  Bartholomew  ;  at  the  head  of  St.  Matthias,  and 
at  the  arms  of  Matthew  and  Luke.  This  is  but  a  fragment 
from  a  single  list  of  the  articles  displayed  at  a  single,  church 
in  Rome.  We  have  the  same  contempt  for  it  that  you 
have. 

In  like  manner  we  do  not  ask  you  to  explore,  with 
pilgrims  of  easy  faith,  the  places  where,  in  Palestine  and 
elsewhere,  they  pretend  to  show  the  identical  spots  where 
all  the  chief  transactions  of  the  life  of  Jesus  occurred,  and 
wind  up  the  exhibition  by  pointing  out  His  footmarks ! 

We  have  something  much  more  satisfactory  to  bring 
before  you.  Such  is  the  correspondence  between  the 
New  Testament  representations  and   the  ascertainable 


102  Christianity  Historically  True. 

facts.  The  antipathy  which  prevailed  between  the  Jews 
and  the  Samaritans  is  sufficiently  verified  by  passages 
from  Josephus.  The  popularity  and  splendour  of  the 
temple  and  worship  of  Diana  at  Ephesus  is  attested  by 
ancient  writers,  and  demonstrated  by  recent  excavations 
on  the  spot.  The  condition  and  state  of  Athens  are 
shown  by  other  witnesses  to  be  correctly  set  forth  in  the 
Christian  Scriptures.  And  so  of  other  things.  Our  foes 
have  failed  to  discover  the  unhistorical,  and  have  been 
driven  or  shut  up  to  general  expressions  of  discontent, 
and  to  assaults  upon  the  miraculous  elements.  But 
surely  it  is  no  light  argument  in  our  favour  that  we  can 
confirm  the  incidental  statements  of  our  book  to  such  an 
extent,  that  of  those  which  belong  to  ordinary  history,  very 
few  remain  unconfirmed,  and  none  are  known  to  be  fic- 
titious. It  may  be  said  that  in  a  few  instances  there  are 
chronological  or  other  differences  of  detail  between  what 
we  read  in  the  New  Testament  and  in  the  works  of  some 
other  writers.  Nor  do  we  care  to  deny  that  it  is  so, 
because  it  remains  to  be  shown  that  our  book  is  less 
credible  than  the  others,  and  that  it  is  wrong  wherever  it 
does  not  perfectly  coincide  with  them. 

There  is  another  reason  for  the  truly  historical  charac- 
ter of  the  Christian  Scriptures,  arising  out  of  their  moral 
tone  and  the  impression  they  produce.  From  first  to 
last  there  is  an  uniform  avoidance  of  mere  rhetorical 
phraseology ;  all  is  calm,  and  dignified,  and  natural.  The 
idea  of  producing  the  studied  "  effects  "  which  charac- 
terise all  writers  of  fiction,  is  never  entertained  by  the 
evangelical  penmen.  The  things  which  are  peculiar  to 
Christianity  are  so  interwoven  with  the  characters  and 
details  which  may  be  called  external,  that  the  result 
reminds  us  of  the  warp  and  woof  of  a  textile  fabric.     As 


Christianity  Historically  Trite,  103 

these  cannot  be  separated  without  destroying  the  piece, 
so  will  it  be  if  we  seek  to  extract  from  the  New  Testa- 
ment the  purely  Christian  element,  and  to  leave  the 
secular. 

That  the  veracity  of  the  Christian  writers  is  a  reality  is 
to  be  inferred  from  their  constant  attitude  in  relation  to 
truth  and  its  kindred  virtues.  They  inculcate  sincerity 
and  honesty  of  the  most  absolute  description ;  the  practice 
of  hypocrisy,  fraud,  and  lying  is  prohibited  in  the  most 
solemn  terms,  and  denounced  in  language  of  terrible 
power  and  significance.  Christians  are  exhorted  to  put 
away  lying,  and  to  speak  truth  to  one  another;  it  is 
declared  that  liars  are  excluded  from  all  the  blessings 
offered  by  the  Gospel  in  this  world  and  in  that  to  come, 
and  Jesus  is  represented  as  asserting  that  Satan  is  the 
father  of  lying.  On  the  other  hand,  the  commendations 
paid  to  truth  and  sincerity,  the  inducements  offered  to 
men  to  make  them  true,  and  the  representation  of  God 
Himself  as  absolutely  true,  are  equally  unqualified.  To 
all  which  we  ought  to  add  the  reiterated  affirmations  of 
the  writers  and  speakers,  that  what  they  say  is  true.  So 
much  in  favour  of  truth  is  scarcely  possible  in  a  book 
which  is  framed  in  falsehood  and  deceit.  Consistently  to 
sustain  these  professions  of  truth  would  not  be  within  the 
power  of  any  band  of  impostors.  But  these  men  held 
fast  their  profession,  and  bequeathed  their  book  to  the 
world  as  true.  To  suggest  that  they  were  mistaken  is  to 
imply  that  they  were  insane  ;  and,  in  truth,  the  suggestion 
itself  is  not  strongly  rational,  because  a  body  of  men,  not 
one,  but  several,  must  have  laboured  under  a  delusion 
respecting  a  supposed  train  of  occurrences  extending  over 
many  years,  and  in  which  they  were  personally  concerned. 
The  suggestion  also  encounters  the  difficulty  originated 


104  Christianity  Historically  True. 

by  the  pervading  tissue  of  known  historic  fact,  and  the 
impracticability  of  placing  a  finger  upon  any  ascertained 
fiction. 

Let  us  now  take  a  somewhat  different  position,  and 
see  what  there  is  outside  the  book  in  favour  of  our 
opinion.  The  adversary  must  in  all  honour  concede 
our  first  two  propositions,  namely,  (i)  that  the  existence 
of  the  Christian  records  can  be  traced  back  to  a  date 
very  near  to  that  which  we  ascribe  to  them,  and  (2)  that 
the  earliest  witnesses  for  their  existence  believed  the 
facts  set  out  in  those  records.  The  proof  for  these  two 
is  identical.  To  establish  it  we  need  not  begin  with  the 
much  maligned  Eusebius  of  Csesarea,  who,  as  a  compiler 
of  ancient  history,  occupies  an  important  place  from  a 
purely  secular  point  of  view.  We  can  dispense  with 
Athanasius,  and  Lactantius,  and  Cyprian.  We  have 
older  witness  than  Origen,  and  Hippolytus,  and  Clement 
of  Alexandria.  Tertullian  is  not  indispensable  for  our 
purpose.  The  labours  of  the  chronicler,  Julius  Afri- 
canus,  and  of  the  historian,  Hegesippus,  may  be  passed 
over  as  no  more  essential  than  those  of  Papias.  All 
these  and  a  hundred  more  venerable  names,  though 
dead,  yet  speak,  and  proclaim  themselves  witness  for  the 
facts  of  the  Christian's  Book ;  but  we  may  fearlessly  pass 
beyond  them,  assured  that  the  nearer  we  come  to  the 
source  of  its  light  we  shall  not  be  the  more  involved  in 
darkness. 

Plunging  at  a  bound  across  seventeen  centuries,  we 
find  on  every  hand  Christian  communities.  They  are 
to  be  seen  on  the  northern  shores  of  Africa,  and  in  the 
valley  of  the  Nile ;  they  are  scattered  over  Palestine  and 
Syria ;  they  spread  away  into  and  across  the  vast  plains 
of  Mesopotamia;   they  are  sprinkled  along  the  coasts 


Christianity  Historically   True.  105 

and  among  the  provinces  of  Asia  Minor,  from  east  to 
west,  in  Smyrna  and  Ephesus,  as  well  as  in  less  populous 
cities  ;  they  are  numerous  in  Macedonia  and  Achaia 
and  other  Grecian  provinces;  they  are  planted  in- Italy, 
with  Rome  as  their  centre  ;  they  are  distinguishable  in 
Gaul,  and  indeed  are  more  widely  extended  than  the 
Roman  Empire.  All  this  is  the  work  of  Htde  more  than 
a  century;  and  all  these  churches  believe  the  facts 
recorded  in  the  New  Testament !  Who  can  so  much  as 
imagine  all  these  myriads  deceived?  Among  their 
leaders  and  ministers  were  men  who  had  been  Jews  and 
Pagans,  but  who  had  been  convinced  that  Jesus  was  the 
Christ,  and  that  what  was  told  of  Him  and  the  apostles 
was  true.  There  were  men  of  learning  and  philosophers, 
who  had  submitted  to  the  evidences  which  they  at  first 
had  only  despised.  We  cannot  think  that  light  argu- 
ments persuaded  Athenagoras  of  Alexandria,  Tatian  of 
Syria,  Bardesanes  of  Edessa,  Theophilus  of  Antioch, 
Melito  of  Sardis,  Justin  Martyr  of  Samaria,  Sixtus  of 
Rome,  or  Irenaeus  of  Lyons.  Yet  we  find  them  one 
and  all,  with  many  more,  associated  with  the  Christian 
flock  as  believers  in  the  facts  of  Christianity.  If  their 
sincerity  is  not  attested  by  their  conversion,  nor  sealed 
by  the  blood  of  those  who  died  for  Christ,  their  know- 
ledge of  the  facts  of  the  New  Testament,  and  their 
avowal  of  belief  in  them,  is  demonstrated  by  their  simple 
profession. 

Observe  also  that  these  early  churches  accepted  certain 
institutions  which  were  commemorative  of  some  of  the 
cardinal  facts  of  the  New  Testament.  They  had  the 
rite  of  baptism;  they  were  familiar  with  Sunday  as  a 
memorial  of  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  from  the  dead ; 
they  observed  the  Lord's  Supper,  as  a  memento  of  His 


xo6  Christianity  Historically  True. 

crucifixion ;  and,  we  may  add,  the  Easter  festival  itsei 
can  be  traced  back  at  least  to  the  middle  of  the  second 
century.  The  grandfathers  and  grandmothers  of  those 
who  kept  these  feasts  might  many  of  them  have  been 
living  when  Christ  died  upon  the  cross ;  and  we  know 
that  some  of  them  conversed  with  men  who  knew  the 
apostles.  It  is  difficult  to  see  what  place  there  is  for 
imposture,  delusion,  or  myth,  in  the  presence  of  these 
tacts.  The  hypothesis  of  a  combination  of  leaders  to 
deceive  the  people  is  simply  impossible.  Not  only  were 
these  leaders  too  numerous,  but  too  many  interests  were 
jX  stake,  and  too  many  eyes  were  upon  them ;  nor  were 
the  people  all  fools  or  knaves. 

That  the  New  Testament  facts  were  publicly  extant 
IS  proved  by  other  forms  of  evidence.  The  books  in 
which  they  are  composed  were  in  existence  and  were 
circulated.  They  are  mentioned  by  some  Christian 
authors  of  that  age,  and  were  used  by  all.  They  lie  at 
the  foundation  of  all  the  earliest  Christian  Hterature  now 
extant.  Their  influence  and  very  form  moulded  the 
thoughts  and  language  of  Irenseus,  Justin,  and  others 
already  named,  as  well  as  of  Polycarp,  Ignatius,  and  the 
rest.  The  documents  were  necessarily  published  and 
common  in  Greek ;  they  were  translated  into  Latin,  and 
into  Syriac,  and  were  partly  extant  at  least  in  the 
Hebrew  of  that  time.  The  whole  civilized  world  there- 
fore had  ample  opportunity  of  refuting  them  if  untrue. 
But  from  none,  whether  on  the  banks  of  the  Nile  or  of 
the  Jordan,  the  Euphrates  or  the  Tigris,  the  Tiber,  the 
Rhone,  or  the  Hellespont,  did  there  sound  forth  a 
protest  against  the  substantial  truth  of  the  Christian 
Book. 

Narrowing  our  range  as  we  advance,  we  come  to  the 


Christianity  Historically  True.  107 

very  borders  of  the  apostolic  age ;  but  even  there,  in  the 
scanty  literary  remains  which  have  survived  the  ordeal  of 
modern  criticism,  we  find  the  same  unfaltering  witness 
to,  and  acceptance  of,  the  facts  of  Christianity.  The 
beautiful  letter  to  Diognetus,  the  vigorous  but  eccentric 
document  called  after  Barnabas,  the  gushing  utterances 
of  Ignatius,  and  the  admirable  counsels  of  Clement,  are 
unanimous.  Clement,  in  fact,  belongs  to  the  apostolic 
jge,  and  he  bears  brilliant  testimony  to  Jesus  and  His 
apostles,  Paul,  for  example,  whose  first  Epistle  to  the 
Corinthians  is  explicitly  quoted.  Clement  is  the  hnk 
which  connects  with  Christ  and  the  New  Testament  the 
chain  of  evidence  which  extends  to  our  own  day.  Of 
this  chain  every  link  is  uniform,  complete,  and  radiant 
with  light.  It  lays  hold  on  Christ  the  rock  of  ages ;  it 
has  sufficed  to  sustain  the  faith  of  His  Church  from  the 
beginning ;  and  as  generations  pass  new  links  are  added. 
God  be  thanked,  the  longer  it  lasts  and  the  longer  it  is, 
the  stronger  it  grows.  The  variations  of  the  needle 
which  points  to  the  pole  are  far  greater  than  those  of  the 
witness  which  points  to  the  Saviour. 

At  a  very  early  date  men  arose  who  put  a  peculiar 
explanation  on  the  facts,  or  associated  them  with  other 
facts  and  speculations.  Hence  came  what  we  call  here- 
sies. These  began  in  the  lifetime  of  the  apostles,  as  we 
may  gather  from  the  New  Testament.  It  is  palpable, 
however,  from  all  the  evidence  we  have,  and  some  of  it 
very  ancient,  that  these  heresies  affected  the  reality  of 
but  a  small  number  of  the  facts  recorded  in  the 
Christian  records.  Even  the  one  which  regarded  Christ 
as  not  a  real  man  in  flesh  and  blood,  is  not  essentially 
adverse  to  our  view,  because  the  question  raised  was  one 
of  interpretation.     It  was  admitted  that  Jesus  appeared 


io8  Christianity  Historically  True. 

as  a  man,  and  as  a  human  being  appeared  to  teach,  and 
so  of  the  rest  j  and  this  was  a  recognition  of  the  historic 
facts.  So  strange  were  the  theories  advanced  by  some 
founders  of  heresy,  that  we  cannot  avoid  thinking  they 
would  gladly  have  rejected,  had  it  been  possible,  not  a 
few  of  the  incidents  set  forth  in  the  New  Testament. 
That  they  had  that  book  is  known  in  regard  to  some  of 
them  who  accepted  it  in  a  form  more  or  less  entire.  The 
rejection  of  parts  implies  the  existence  of  the  whole, 
and  does  not  imply  the  rejection  of  historic  state- 
ments so  much  as  rejection  of  authority.  Some  of  the 
earliest  commentators  on  the  Gospels  were  heretics, 
of  whom  Basilides  was  a  notable  example,  living  as 
he  did  early  in  the  second  century,  and  was  born  in  the 
first. 

That  the  prevalent  belief  which  we  find  so  widespread 
in  the  second  century,  and  even  before,  was  no  idle  assent 
to  a  myth,  may  be  inferred  from  other  facts,  to  which  we 
appeal  in  support  of  our  argument.  Nobody  can  trace 
Jesus  and  the  apostles  to  an  earlier  date  than  that  the 
evangelical  writers  refer  them  to.  Therefore,  if  the  records 
were  untrue  or  mythical,  they  must  not  only  have  origi- 
nated in  an  historical  age,  but  very  soon  indeed  after, 
nay,  almost  before,  some  of  the  alleged  writers  were  dead. 
Observe,  too,  that  no  one  can  trace  these  narratives  to 
any  original  source,  except  the  country  from  which  they 
may  be  said  to  have  all  emanated,  although  not  all  written 
in  Palestine.  Bear  in  mind,  also,  that  the  accept- 
ance of  the  evangelical  story  and  Epistles  was  fraught 
with  consequences  far  more  serious  than  we  can  easily 
realize,  and  that  therefore  belief,  as  a  rule,  must  have 
been  the  result  of  powerful  conviction.  Put  all  these 
things  together,  and  you  will  perceive  in  them  a  fresh 


Christianity  Historically  True.  109 

group  of  reasons  in  favour  of  the  historical  veracity  of 
the  New  Testament. 

It  is  just  possible  that  some  might  here  urge  as  an 
.  objection  the  case  of  the  so-called  Apocryphal  Gospels, 
respecting  which  we  have  been  told  that  they  are  as 
ancient  as  the  Canonical  Gospels,  are  as  well  attested, 
and  were  equally  received  in  the  early  Christian  Church. 
Each  of  these  assertions  is  incorrect ;  i,  they  are  not 
so  ancient;  2,  are  not  as  well  attested;  and,  3,  were  not 
equally  received  in  the  early  Church.  The  earliest 
extant  author  who  refers  to  apocryphal  books  is  Irenaeus, 
far  on  in  the  second  century ;  but  it  is  said  such  docu- 
ments were  used  before  his  time,  which  is  very  likely,  in 
fact  is  certain,  because  he  himself  tells  us  so.  From 
him  we  gather  the  impprtant  fact  that  the  spurious  and 
fabulous  books  were  the  production  of  erratic  heretics. 
An  attempt  has  been  made  to  find  quotations  from 
Apocryphal  Gospels  in  Justin  Martyr  and  Ignatius,  but 
with  very  unsatisfactory  results.  What  Clement  of 
Alexandria  calls  the  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews, 
seems  to  have  been  a  modification  of  one  of  our  Gospels; 
and  the  same  may  have  been  the  case  with  others.  But 
one  fact  results  from  all  inquiries,  and  it  is  that  the 
apocryphal  books  were  imitations  of  the  canonical,  were 
intended  to  supply  supposed  historical  omissions,  or 
were  meant  to  be  the  vehicle  of  peculiar  doctrines ;  all 
which  proves  them  the  less  ancient.  As  to  their  being 
well  attested,  nothing  of  the  kind  appears  in  those 
examples  which  we  possess,  but  very  much  to  suggest 
that  they  are  considerably  more  modem,  and  are  not 
attested  at  all.  Of  their  acceptance  by  the  churches,  the 
less  said  the  better  ;  because  we  have  no  proof  of  their 
reception  as  authorities  by  the  early  Fathers  or  the  earlv 


no  Christianity  Historically  True, 

Church.  Not  one  of  them  ever  found  its  way  into  the 
cmon  ;  they  either  perished,  Hke  the  heresies  which  pro- 
duced them,  or  took  their  place  among  avowedly  legend- 
ary literature.  Some  of  them  may  be  mythical,  in  the 
loose  sense  in  which  the  Life  of  Apollonius  is  so;  but 
they  occupy  a  very  different  position  from  the  myths  of 
Greece,  Italy,  and  India. 

The  historical  character  of  the  New  Testament  has 
been  assailed  on  the  ground  of  the  alleged  silence  of 
contemporary  historians.  To  this  we  have  already 
referred ;  but  we  must  mention  it  again  in  order  to  add 
some  things  which  come  in  better  here.  In  the  first 
place,  no  writer  can  be  found  from  whom  we  might  justly 
look  for  mention  of  some  of  the  facts,  who  does  not 
mention  them.  It  is  a  curious  circumstance  that  there 
was  no  writer  of  the  history  of  that  period  from  Velleius 
Paterculus,  who  concluded  his  work  in  about  a.d.  30, 
to  Josephus,  who  wrote  not  less  than  sixty  years  later. 
For  the  great  events  of  that  long  period  we  are  dependent 
upon  other  sources.  We  are  told  of  Philo;  but  Philo 
was  not  an  historian  in  any  proper  sense ;  he  lived  in 
Egypt,  and  died  before  any  of  the  Christian  Scriptures 
could  have  been  circulated.  Not  one  of  his  extant 
works  brings  him  into  contact  with  such  movements  as 
the  introduction  of  Christianity.  About  a.d.  40  or  41 
he  went  to  Rome  on  a  mission  connected  with  the  Jews, 
his  countrymen ;  but  there  was  nothing  in  that  to  call 
for  any  allusion  from  him  to  Jesus  and  the  apostles. 
His  object  was  such  that,  as  a  prudent  man,  he  would 
say  nothing  of  Christianity,  whatever  he  might  know. 
In  the  meantime  Philo  is  a  valuable  witness  in  our  favour 
in  several  respects.  He  mentions  various  facts  which 
are  noticed  in  the  New  Testament  as  belonging  to  the 


Christianity  Historically  True.  iii 

history  of  the  period  \  he  confirms  the  New  Testament 
representations  of  the  condition  of  the  Jews  and  of  the 
state  of  opinion  among  them  ;  and  his  use  of  Greek 
words  aud  phrases,  which  are  peculiar,  harmonises  ex- 
tensively with  the  same  things  in  the  New  Testament. 

With  reference  to  the  assertion  that  the  writers  of  the 
Christian  Scriptures  are  not  mentioned  until  long  after 
they  must  have  been  dead,  we  may  safely  say  that  it  is 
no  real  objection  at  all.  If  the  principle  were  applied 
to  other  writers,  as  a  test,  a  large  number  of  the  most 
generally  received  would  have  to  be  rejected.  It  would 
be  so  with  the  two  most  recently  named  in  this  lecture. 
Velleius  Paterculus  may  possibly  be  alluded  to  as  a  man, 
but  not  as  an  author,  by  Tacitus ;  and  it  is  probable  that 
he  is  meant  in  a  passage  of  Priscian,  in  the  fourth 
century.  This  is  all  the  ancient  external  testimony  we 
have  for  him.  The  name  of  Philo  and  his  journey  to 
Rome  first  appear  in  Josephus,  some  fifty  years  after  his 
death  ;  but  even  Josephus  mentions  none  of  his  writings. 
The  second  to  speak  of  him  is  Justin  Martyr,  another 
fifty  years  later ;  and  the  third  is  Clement  of  Alexan- 
dria, fifty  years  later  again.  We  may  well  ask  the  man 
of  little  faith  why  he  accepts  Velleius  Paterculus  and 
Philo,  but  refuses  Matthew,  Mark,  Luke,  and  John, 
Peter  and  Paul ! 

Another  point  of  considerable  importance  is  the 
silence  of  the  adversaries  of  the  Church.  Whatever 
objections  to  details  and  principles  were  made  by  Julian 
and  Porphyry,  Celsus,  and  the  rest,  we  search  in  vain  for 
any  intimation  that  they  denied  the  historical  basis  and 
framework  of  the  New  Testament.  These  were  no  ignoble 
and  ignorant  opponents,  but  men  of  position,  ability, 
and  learning;  yet  they  shrank  from  uttering  the  broad 


112  Christianity  Historically  True, 

denials  which  are  so  current  in  our  day.  Juhan  was 
an  emperor,  and  in  him  centred  the  last  hopes  of  the  old 
paganism ;  and  surely,  with  all  the  resources  of  the  age  at 
his  command,  and  all  the  will  required,  he  would  have 
discovered  and  proclaimed  the  fact  that  the  Church  was 
founded  upon  a  fable,  and  that  there  was  no  place  in 
history  for  the  records  of  the  New  Testament.  He  adopts 
a  different  course ;  he  recognizes  Matthew,  Mark,  Luke, 
John,  and  Paul,  by  name  as  writers,  but  he  assails  their 
doctrine,  he  rejects  the  supernatural.  The  cases  of 
Porphyry  and  Celsus  were  similar.  We  fail  then  to  find 
any  intimation  that  any  of  the  earliest  opponents  of 
Christianity  occupied  the  position  which  we  are  attacking 
to-day.  Their  very  silence  is  eloquent.  If  we  are  told 
that  the  Christians  burnt  the  books  of  their  enemies,  we 
may  say  that  this  was  not  till  a  comparatively  late  period, 
and  we  are  sorry  that  Christians  followed  the  bad 
example  set  them  by  their  persecutors.  In  the  mean- 
time we  have  still  so  many  arguments  in  favour  of  Chris- 
tianity in  very  early  writers,  and  so  many  rej)lies  to  the 
objections  then  advanced,  that  we  know  perfectly  well 
what  the  unbelievers  of  those  ages  had  to  say.  It  does 
not  appear  from  any  extant  records  that  the  Jews 
attacked  the  New  Testament  on  broad  historical  grounds, 
any  more  than  the  Gentiles  did. 

Both  Jews  and  Gentiles  allowed  the  Church  to  spread 
its  Scriptures  far  and  wide,  without  an  attempt  to 
expose  their  now  supposed  unhistorical  character.  No 
one  can  say  they  were  slack  in  their  attempts  to  destroy 
the  rising  faith.  The  new  doctrines  were  mocked  and 
ridiculed  and  held  up  to  scorn ;  the  beUevers  were 
branded  as  ignominious  apostates ;  bonds  and  imprison- 
ments, exile  and  the  arena,  fire  and  sword,  were  their 


Chi'istianity  Historically  True.  113 

portion ;  the  pride  of  the  Caesars  frowned  upon  them ; 
the  vanity  of  the  philosophers  despised  them ;  the 
bigotry  of  the  Jews  was  bitter  against  them ;  the  very 
superstition  of  the  mukitudes  was  in  a  fury  with  them ; 
the  satirists  lampooned  them ;  the  orators  denounced 
them ;  the  priests  hated  them;  the  judges  condemned 
them;  and  the  wild  beast  or  executioner  despatched 
them.  You  know  the  result.  The  more  they  were  afflicted 
the  more  they  multiplied,  and  the  blood  of  the  martyrs 
was  the  seed  of  the  Church.  The  Christian  boots 
remained  unrefuted,  and  the  imperial  edicts  were  unable 
to  suppress  them.  They  went  abroad,  were  copied,  and 
translated,  and  men  at  all  risks  believed,  and  loved,  and 
obeyed  them.  Throw  yourselves  into  these  circum- 
stances, and  realize,  if  you  can,  the  possibility  of  a 
shameless  fiction  surviving  such  an  ordeal,  ^nd  gaining 
new  power  from  day  to  day.  It  is  not  the  way  of  men 
to  accept  in  vast  numbers,  and  to  retain  amid  such 
risks,  stories  for  which  there  is  not  only  no  foundation, 
but  the  exposure  of  which  is  an  easy  work.  We  seek  in 
vain  for  any  parallel  to  the  case  of  the  early  Church,  and 
we  may  safely  affirm  that  the  phenomenon  is  explicable 
only  on  the  principle  that  the  record  on  which  it  de- 
pended was  historically  and  divinely  true. 

That  record  is  still  extant,  and  it  invites  investigation. 
It  is  willing  to  undergo,  as  a  book,  all  the  legitimate  tests 
to  which  a  book  can  be  subjected.  It  requests  the  philo- 
logist to  analyse  its  language,  the  archaeologist  to  explore 
its  references  to  works  of  human  skill ;  the  botanist  and 
zoologist  to  indentify  its  references  to  animal  and  vege- 
table life ;  the  historian  to  investigate  its  allusions  to  con- 
temporary history;  the  Jew  to  try  its  indications  of 
Hebrew  customs   and   opinions,   laws,   and   traditions;, 

8' 


114  Christianity  Historically  True. 

the  Gentile  to  search  into  what  it  says  of  the  idols  and 
worship  of  the  heathen ;  every  man  who  is  a  competent 
authority  on  any  alleged  fact  in  its  pages,  and  by  their 
verdict  it  is  willing  to  be  judged. 

It  has  been  thus  tried  in  every  generation ;  it  has 
passed  many  times  through  this  manifold  ordeal;  it  is 
passing  through  it  now.  But  while  the  fashion  of  the 
world  has  been  changing,  and  the  wisdom  of  the  world 
has  varied  from  age,  to  age,  faith  in  the  New  Testament 
as  both  true  and  the  word  of  the  Lord  has  remained,  and 
is  destined  to  abide  for  ever.* 

*  It  will  be  recollected  that  Gilbert  West,  an  accomplished  scepticof 
the  last  century,  set  himself  to  apply  the  ordinary  laws  of  evidence  to 
the  New  Testament  record  of  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ ;  the 
result  was  the  restoration  of  faith,  and  a  book  in  defence  of  the 
records  of  the  resurrection.  Dr.  Johnson  says,  **  When  West's  book 
was  published,  it  was  bought  by  some  who  did  not  know  his  change 
of  opinion,  in  expectation  of  new  objections  against  Christianity." 
To  this  anecdote  anothei,  no  less  famous,  may  be  added.  It  is 
related  of  Thomas  Lord  Lyttelton,  that  "in  early  life  he  had  been 
led  to  entertain  doubts  of  the  truth  of  revelation  ;-  hut  a  serious 
inquiry  into  the  evidences  of  the  Christian  religion  produced  in  his 
mind  a  firm  conviction  of  its  Divine  authority,  in  which  he  persisted 
to  the  end  of  his  life.  He  gave  a  public  testimony  of  his  attachment 
to  the  cause  by  a  'Dissertation  on  the  Conversion  of  St.  Paul,' 
printed  in  1747,  which  is  justly  regarded  as  a  masterly  performance. " 
— Rosis  General  Biographical  Dictionary, 


SCIENCE  AND  SCRIPTURE  NOT  AN- 
TAGONISTIC, BECAUSE  DISTINCT  IN 
THEIR  SPHERES  OF  THOUGHT. 

BY  THE 

REV.  GEORGE  HENSLOW,  M.A.,  F.L.S.,  F.G.S., 

LECTURER  ON   BOTANY  AT  S.  BARTHOLOMEW'S   HOSPITAU 


Science  and  Scripture  not  Antagonis- 
tic, because  distinct  in  their  Spheres 
of  Thought. 


PART  I. 

INTRODUCTORY. 

The  Objects  of  Science. 


IN  order  that  there  may  be  no  misunderstanding  as  to 
the  proper  usage  of  terms,  it  is  desirable  to  state  or 
define  clearly,  at  the  very  outset  of  a  disquisition,  any 
expressions  about  which  a  discussion  may  arise.  On  the 
present  occasion,  the  two  mentioned  in  the  subject  of  this 
essay  are  not  difhcult  to  define.  Scripture  is  synony- 
mous with  the  Bible ;  while  by  Science  is  meant  the 
investigation  of  facts  and  phenomena  recognizable  by  the 
senses,  and  of  the  causes  which  have  brought  them  into 
existence.  Hence  Science  endeavours  to  trace  out  the 
laws  which  govern  the  changes  they  may  undergo. 

The  objects  of  scientific  research  are  so  numerous, 
that  it  is  necessary  to  divide  and  subdivide  them  into 
many  departments  :  thus  we  have  natural,  experimental, 
physical,  social,  and  other  branches  of  science  too  nu- 
merous to  mention. 


Il8      Science  and  Scripture  not  AntagonistiCy 

If  we  consider  the  objects  of  a  few  of  such  branches, 
selecting,  for  example,  physical  science,  and  of  that,  the 
study  of  electricity  and  magnetism,  we  should  probably 
find  that  the  phenomena  presented  by  these  subtle  forces 
were  first  examined  solely  for  the  love  of  acquiring  know- 
ledge ;  but  a  great  practical  result  issuing  from  them  is 
Telegraphy.  Or,  if  we  turn  to  chemistry^  there  is  scarcely  a 
single  art  or  manufacture  that  is  not  largely  indebted  to  that 
branch  of  experimental  science  ;  while  a  knowledge  of  the 
laws  of  health,  and  the  practical  endeavours  to  furnish  the 
conditions  requisite  for  their  action,  both  internally  and 
externally  to  our  persons,  is  largely  aided  by  familiarity 
with  chemical  science.  Similarly,  the  investigation  into 
the  laws  of  heat  have  aided  mankind  to  an  immeasur- 
able degree  by  the  application  of  steam. 

It  will  appear  from  a  few  considerations  of  this  sort 
that  we  may  regard  scientific  pursuits,  or  rather  the 
motive  for  pursuing  them,  from  two  points  of  view. 

On  the  one  hand,  it  is  solely  from  the  love  of  and 
thirst  for  knowledge,  without  any  reference  or  definite 
idea  as  to  the  probability  of  that  knowledge  bringing 
forth  some  practical  result :  for  example,  it  is  not  clear 
how  the  spectroscopic  analysis  of  the  light  of  a  nebula 
can  be  of  any  practical  use  to  mankind ;  nor  how  the 
structure  of  the  fishes  of  an  ancient  geological  period  is 
at  all  likely  to  assist  pisciculture  at  the  present  time. 

On  the  other  hand,  branches  of  science  may  be  pursued 
with  a  practical  motive  only,  as  when  physical  laws  are 
studied  in  engineering,  chemistry  for  improvements  in 
candle  manufacturing;  vegetable  physiology  for  the  ap- 
plication of  its  principle  in  the  cultivation  of  plants, 
whether  agricultural  or  horticultural. 

Now  it  will   hardly  be  maintained,  certainly  not  by 


Because  distinct  in  their  Spheres  of  Thought.     1 19 

any  liberal-minded  and  intellectual  person,  that  Science 
should  not  be  studied  unless  it  can  be  shown  that  the 
pursuit  leads  to  some  practical  end.  The  desirability  of 
studying  some  branch  merely  as  an  intellectual  stimulus 
is  so  generally  recognised,  that  it  would  be  waste  of  time 
to  argue  against  such  gross  utilitarianism.  Admitting  the 
recognised  love  for  Science,  and  the  delight  in  pursuing  it, 
as  a  natural  and  wholesome  impulse,  it  seems  strange  that 
any  persons  should  be  found  at  the  present  day  who  can 
condemn  the  pursuit;  for  it  is  but  one  form  of  the 
search  after  truth. 

The  naturalist,  for  example,  on  investigating  the  laws 
which  govern  the  development  of  animal  and  vegetable 
life,  does  no  more  than  examine  as  accurately  and  care- 
fully as  he  can  the  animals  and  plants  brought  under  his 
notice,  and  then  traces  the  laws  governing  the  changes 
which  take  place  in  their  forms  and  structures,  and  the 
laws  governing  their  development  and  reproduction.  If 
he  cannot  discover  the  cause  of  any  phenomenon  com- 
pletely, he  uses  such  knowledge  as  he  possesses  of  similar 
or  analogous  causes,  and  by  means  of  it  supplements  this 
unknown  cause  by  a  certain  amount  of  reasonable  and 
probable  grounds  of  conjecture,  and  so  frames  an  hypo- 
thesis or  theory,  holding  it,  however,  with  a  light  hand 
until  he  acquire  more  knowledge,  and  so  discover  the 
entire  and  proper  cause,  i.e.^  if  his  suggestion  shall  have 
ultimately  proved  wrong. 

Science,  in  its  development  under  man's  study,  cannot 
advance  at  all  without  such  theories  and  hypotheses;  they 
are  the  temporal  stepping-stones  to  knowledge,  to  be 
shifted  or  abandoned  as  soon  as  the  right  road  is  dis 
covered. 

It  is  a  proof  of  ignorance  of  the  method  of  progres? 


120    Science  and  Scripture  not  Antagonistic, 

of  all  kinds  of  science,  if  any  one  ridicule  and  condemn 
such  theories.  They  frequently  appear  absurd  to  the 
uninitiated;  in  fact,  it  may  be  generally  stated,  that  what 
persons  do  not  understand  they  are  strangely  inclined  to 
despise.  Not  being  scientifically  trained,  they  do  not 
appreciate  the  difficulties  encountered  by  the  scientific 
investigator,  and  they  cannot  understand  why  he  does 
not  put  before  them  at  once  absolute  and  positive  reasons 
at  every  turn  of  his  scientific  enquiries. 

They  are  apt  to  scorn  and  scoff  at  the  results  which 
he  has  arrived  at  by  long  and  tedious  processes  of 
reasoning,  merely  because  they  seem  to  them,  h  priori, 
absurd ;  simply  because  they  do  not  tally  with  their  own 
ignorance.  Ihe  most  flagrant  example,  and  now  a  matter 
of  history,  was  the  case  of  Galileo  ;  how,  when  he  stoutly 
maintained  that  the  sun  did  not  go  round  the  world  to 
produce  day  and  night,  the  inquisitorial  powers  con- 
demned him  to  recant ;  but  truth  would  not  be  thus 
chained  down,  and  so,  rising  from  his  knees,  he  said 
"  Ah  !  the  earth  moves  for  all  that !  "  Well  knowing 
this,  men  still  hoot  and  scowl  at  theories  even  now, 
which  are  in  advance  of,  if  not  contrary  to,  early 
received  or  traditional  belief.  They  will  not  take  the 
trouble  to  give  five  minutes'  investigation  into  the  sub- 
ject, or  make  the  slightest  attempt  to  follow  the  line  of 
thought  which  the  scientific  man  has  been  patiently,  it 
may  be  for  years,  closely  and  unintermittently  pursuing, 
his  sole  object  having  been  to  elicit  from  nature  her 
voice  of  truth. 

In  thus  alluding  to  objections  raised  by  certain  non- 
scientific  persons  against  science,  their  animadversions 
would  seem  to  be  directed  against  certain  departments 
of  science ;  for  one  does  not  often  hear  of  any  serious 


Because  distinct  in  their  Spheres  of  Thought.     121 

opposition,  />.,  to  chemistry,  electricity,  botany,  or  to 
social  science,  the  object  being  generally  supposed  at 
least  harmless,  if  not  beneficial;  while  in  the  last-men- 
tioned case,  the  object  of  men  of  known  philosophic 
characters  is  esteemed  good,  as  aiming  at  the  well-being 
and  improvement  of  social  condition.*  But  the  science 
which  seems  to  have  called  forth  the  greatest  amount  ol 
ridicule,  abuse,  and  opposition,  is  Geology,  coupled  with 
the  doctrine  which  has  partially  grown  out  of  it,  viz., 
evolution  of  living  things,  and  as  an  extension  of  that 
doctrine,  according  to  some  theorists,  the  origin  of  man 
himself. 

It  will  be  necessary  to  consider  wherein  the  objection 
lies,  and  if  possible  to  meet  it. 

Now,  to  do  this,  we  must  first  consider  the  scope, 
of  Scripture,  for  it  may  be  stated  at  once  that  the 
objection  appears  to  lie  in  erroneous  and  preconceived 
ideas  derived  from  Scripture,  that  is,  the  Bible. 

Having  done  this,  I  shall  return  to  geology,  and  then 
bring  Science  and  the  Scriptures  face  to  face. 


PART  II. 

THE   SCRIPTURE,    OR   THE    BIBLE. 

With  regard  to  this  book,  the  following  facts  are  so 
well  known  and  so  easy  of  proof,  that  we  need  not  stop 
to  discuss  them  :  That  half  of  it  was  written  in  Hebrew, 
and  that  the  greater  portion  of  that  half  concerns  the 
history  of  the  Jews,  a  race  of  people  still  existing,  and 

*  It  is  true  there  are  certain  special  pleaders  for  social  science, 
falsely  so  called,  but  they  are  pleaders  for  the  guilty,  not  the 
mnocent. 


122      Science  and  Scripture  not  Antagonistic^ 

v.'ho  cherish  that  portion  of  the  Scriptures  which  refers  to 
them  with  the  most  jealous  care.  The  other  half  was 
written  in  Greek,  and  consists  of  a  few  memoirs  of  a  most 
remarkable  man  called  Jesus  Christ,  who,  as  these 
memoirs  detail,  promulgated  not  exactly  a  new  religion, 
but  one  of  a  more  comprehensive  and  liberal  kind  than 
that  taught  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  which  was  for  the 
Jews'  special  benefit,  but  which  they  have  rejected. 
Moreover,  the  religion  of  Jesus  Christ  is  identically  the 
same  wath  that  advanced  by  several  writers,  whose 
epistles  are  bound  up  in  the  same  volume  with  the 
memoirs  alluded  to.  It  is  not  that  each  individual 
writer  has  advanced  his  view  of  what  religion  or  morality 
should  be,  but  that  each  and  all  have  described  and 
enforced  the  same  religion  advocated  by  Jesus  Christ. 
Observe,  too,  that  this  religion  has  something  in  it  which 
appeals  to  the  intuitions,  feelings,  and  reason  of  mankind ; 
that  wherever  other  so-called  Christian  teachers  have  en- 
deavoured to  advocate  it  aright,  it  has  been  accepted. 
The  result  is,  that  Christianity,  together  with  its  aber- 
rant and  semi-Judaistic  form,  Muhammadanism,  which  in- 
cludes base  concessions  to  man's  weakness,  inadmissible 
however  in  the  pure  teaching  of  Christ,  has  occupied  an 
immense  area  of  the  world. 

Now,  if  we  inquire  into  the  nature  and  scope  ot 
Christianity,  we  shall  find  that,  in  the  first  place,  it  may 
be  described  as  an  effort  to  restore  to  a  recognised 
position  of  superiority  those  virtues  which,  until  Christ 
came,  had  been  relegated  to  an  inferior  place :  the 
virtues  of  charity,  gentleness,  kindness,  mercy,  pity, 
meekness,  and  the  like,  having  been  despised  of  men; 
while  mere  animal  or  physical  courage,  if  sufficient, 
could  make  a  man  a  god. 


Because  distinct  in  their  Spheres  of  Thoitght.     123 

Secondly,  self-sacrifice  for  others  was  to  be  a  leading 
feature,  instead  of  selfishness ;  and  to  do  to  others  what 
we  should  wish  them  to  do  to  us,  was  to  be  the  guiding 
rule  of  our  life. 

Thirdly,  every  form  of  uprightness,  honesty,  probity, 
truthfulness,  and  the  like,  were  strictly  enforced. 

Surely  it  is  hardly  needful  to  pursue  this  subject,  for 
the  more  we  unravel  the  precepts  and  the  principles  of 
the  Gospel,  the  further  do  we  advance  from  any  sup- 
posed injurious  contact  with  science.  For  the  object 
of  this  essay  is  not  to  propound  or  display  the  system 
of  Jewish  or  Christian  morality,  but  to  endeavour  to 
discover  any  discrepancies  between  them  and  science. 
This  cannot  be  done.  Everything  shows  that  their 
spheres  of  thought  are  totally  distinct.  On  the  one  hand, 
science  has  for  its  object  the  knowledge  of  the  material 
world  and  all  upon  it,  z>.,  the  development  of  the  human 
intellect.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Scriptures  unfold  the 
method  of  improvement  of  human  morality.  The  one 
makes  man  intellectually  wise,  the  other  renders  him 
spiritually  good. 

Science  aids  him  to  benefit  his  physical  and  social 
condition  of  life  on  this  earth.  Religion  improves  his 
moral  life  here,  and  fits  him  for  eternity. 

Having  thus  seen  that  the  objects  of  science  and 
the  Scriptures  are  totally  distinct,  let  us  now  consider 
some  of  the  statements  made  by  certain  critics  of  the 
Bible,  before  returning  to  the  only  point  where  there 
would  seem  to  be  any  real  disagreements,  viz.,  between 
geology  and  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis. 

The  first  objection,  and  a  very  old  one,  is,  that  it  is 
frequently  inaccurate  when  scientific  facts  are  alluded  to. 
This  objection  has  almost  been  withdrawn  by  opponents 


124      Science  a7id  Scripture  not  Antagonistic^ 

themselves ;  for  it  is  so  clear  that  appearaiices  are  alluded 
to,  and  not  absolute  facts  ^  that  the  object  of  the  allusion 
is  in  no  way  impaired  by  the  substitution,  and  that,  as  a 
matter  of  scientific  fact,  the  writer  had  no  intention  of 
displaying  his  knowledge,  that  the  objection  completely 
loses  its  force.  Hence,  to  say  that  the  sun  stood  still  is 
paralleled  by  our  own  expression,  the  sun  rises  and  sets. 
Moreover,  a  strictly  accurate  expression  would  have 
conveyed  no  meaning  to  the  people  who  witnessed  the 
sight.  Had  Moses  said,  for  example,  "  Stand  still,  thou 
earth  !  "  for  the  earth  was  apparently  at  rest,  no  arresting 
its  motion  would  have  been  perceptible.  On  the  other 
hand,  many  expressions,  which  must  have  seemed  per- 
plexing to  people  at  the  time,  have  since  been  proved  to 
have  been  correct ;  such,  for  example,  as,  "  My  doctrine 
shall  drop  as  the  rain,  my  speech  shall  distil  as  the  dew" 
(Deut.  xxxii.  2).  Compare  with  this  the  common  but 
erroneous  expression,  "The  dew  falleth."  "The  wind 
whirleth  about  continually,  returning  again  according  to 
his  circuits"  (Eccl.  i.  6).  No  one  then  knew  that 
winds  are  portions  of  cyclones,  and  also  travel  in  circuits 
round  the  poles  of  the  earth. 

Again,  Job  says,  chapter  xxvi.,  verse  7,  "  He  hangeth 
the  earth  upon  nothing ;  He  maketh  weight  for  the 
winds."  Wind  was  not  known  to  have  weight  until 
Priestly  invented  the  barometer,  and  the  weight  of  air  is 
now  measured  by  that  instrument.  Again,  in  chapter 
xxxviii.  31,  Job  asks,  "Canst  thou  bind  the  sweet  influ- 
ences of  the  Pleiades?"  It  is  now  pretty  satisfactorily 
established  that  the  Pleiades  form  the  focus  of  our  system ; 
that  just  as  our  planets  revolve  round  the  sun,  so  the  sun, 
together  with  all  the  members  of  our  system,  revolve  round 
the  Pleiades. 


Because  distinct  in  their  Spheres  of  Thought.    125 

In  Deut.  xxxii.  24,  we  meet  with  a  strictly  true  and 
scientifically  accurate  expression  of  physiology,  "  They 
shall  be  burnt  with  hunger,  and  devoured  with  burning 
heat"  The  consumption  of  the  body  by  hunger  is  as 
strictly  a  burning  as  a  coal  is  burnt  in  the  fire  ! 

Such  are  a  few  of  the  strictly  scientific  expressions  in 
the  Bible  ;  and  what  is  particularly  worthy  of  note  is, 
first,  that  their  accuracy  could  not  have  been  known  at 
the  time  they  were  written ;  and,  secondly,  the  popular 
expressions  of  to-day  ^re  far  more  inaccurate,  yet  we 
never  call  them  in  question,  because  their  use  never  mis- 
leads, but  conveys  the  meaning  intended  by  the  speaker. 
For  example,  to  speak  of  roots  of  a  potato ;  the  dew 
falling  ;  thunder  affecting  ale ;  the  sun  rising  and  setting. 

With  regard  to  the  fact  of  inaccurate  expression  being 
found  in  the  Bible,  it  is  most  important  to  remember  that 
the  Scriptures  were  never  intended,  nor  their  writers 
inspired,  for  the  express  purpose  of  teaching  astronomy, 
geology,  physiology,  or  any  other  science.  Nevertheless 
it  is  both  interesting  and  useful  to  observe  how  Scriptural 
expressions  are  found,  after  all,  to  agree  with  the  dis- 
coveries and  deductions  of  modem  science. 


PART  III. 

GENESIS   COMPARED   WITH   GEOLOGY. 

There  are  a  few  preliminary  remarks  to  be  made  with 
reference  to  the  language  of  Scripture,  as  well  as  to  our 
translation,  or  the  received  version;  not  to  add  the 
various  interpretations  of  its  meanings,  which  will  pre- 


126      Science  attd  Scripture  not  Antagonistic ^ 

elude  all  idea  of  any  a  priori  certainty  as  to  an  absolute 
and  indubitable  meaning  being  always  capable  of  ex- 
traction. 

In  the  first  place,  one  of  the  most  obvious  facts  no- 
ticeable in  Scripture  is  its  utter  want  of  any  scientific 
precision  in  its  use  of  terms.  Whenever  a  scientific 
fact  is  introduced,  it  is  in  popular  language,  and  such  as 
would  be  understood  by  a  person  living  at  the  time  in 
which  it  was  uttered.  This  is  no  more  than  might  be 
expected.  Science  did  not  exist  in  the  days  included, 
not  merely  by  the  Pentateuch,  but  even  during  that  of 
the  entire  Bible  itself.  Moreover  the  writers,  not  giving 
any  exposition  of  science,  never  aim  at  expressing  them- 
selves scientifically. 

This  unscientific  but  popular  style  is  very  observable 
in  the  frequent  use  of  terms  without  any  definition  :  as 
in  the  case  of  the  soul  and  spirit  of  man ;  consequently 
it  is  next  to  impossible  to  secure  an  accurate  compre- 
hension of  their  meaning  in  each  case. 

A  word  closely  concerned  with  the  subject  herein 
discussed  may  be  mentioned  as  an  example ;  viz.,  the 
*' fimiament."  Again,  we  cannot  distinguish  between 
**  Created  "  {Bara\  and  "  made  "  {Asah).  Though  there 
are  these  two  distinct  words,  yet  we  are  quite  unable  to 
discover  whether  there  be  really  any  absolute  distinction 
between  them  or  not. 

With  regard  to  our  received  version,  it  is  most  unfortu- 
nate that  the  same  word  in  the  original  frequently  receives 
more  than  one  rendering  in  English  :  thus  the  words 
hiafioKo^  and  wyairr]  have  each  more  than  one  render- 
ing j  while  of^airav  and  ^CKuv  are  translated  alike. 

Lastly,  the  great  diversity  of  meanings  which  different 
persons  put  upon  the   same  passages,  and  which  have 


Because  distinct  in  their  Spheres  of  Thought.     127 

given  rise  to  as  many  sects  in  the  Church  of  Christ, 
ought  to  be  sufficient  to  prove  that  we  cannot  neces- 
sarily expect  an  unmistakable  rendering  everywhere  in 
the  words  of  Scripture. 

We  cannot,  therefore,  be  too  cautious  in  adapting  a 
scientific  value  to  any  particular  passage  of  Scripture: 
for  an  argument  based  upon  such  a  rigid  interpretation 
as  we  may  give  it  would  fall  to  the  ground,  from  the 
fact  that  the  passage  being  unscientifically  expressed  could 
not  bear  so  severe  a  strain  upon  it. 

An  illustration  of  this  may  be  seen  in  theologians 
adapting  the  meaning  of  indefinite  time  to  the  word 
Yom.  For,  when  geology  had  advanced  sufficiently  to 
be  able  to  show  incontestably  that,  whatever  the  "  days  " 
of  Genesis  might  mean,  they  could  not  possibly  signify 
that  the  world  was  created  within  the  space  of  six  literal 
days,  theologians,  finding  they  must  yield  to  scientific 
discoveries,  immediately  adopted  the  above  interpreta- 
tion, resting  their  belief  upon  the  expression,  "  One  day 
with  the  Lord  is  as  a  thousand  years."  But,  if  the  chapter 
be  read  without  any  reference  to  geology,  and  the  first 
three  verses  of  the  second  chapter  be  carefully  compared 
with  the  fourth  commandment,  I  think  no  one  would 
ever  dream  of  giving  such  a  rendering  to  Yom.  The 
simplest  rendering,  and  the  most  natural  one,  is  an 
ordinary  day,  and  nothing  more. 

Now,  the  question  at  once  arises,  Is  there  any  possible 
reconciliation  between  the  days  of  Genesis  and  the  ages 
of  geology?  I  believe  there  is,  though  wherever  one 
cannot  feel  positive,  it  is  far  better  to  confess  our 
ignorance,  and  wait  for  more  light,  rather  than  to  force  an 
unnatural  meaning  upon  a  passage,  where  no  such  inter- 
pretation was  intended. 


128     Science  and  Scripture  not  Aniagojiistic, 

In  the  first  place,  the  evidence  of  geology  is  too  plain 
to  be  refuted.  It  is  no  use  abusing  science,  nor  per- 
secuting the  geologist  any  longer,  much  less  dreading  him 
as  encroaching  upon,  if  not  undermining,  the  long- 
cherished  belief  derived  from  erroneous  scriptural  inter- 
pretations. 

I,  for  one,  prefer  to  believe  my  rendering  of  Genesis 
to  be  imperfect,  rather  than  regard  geological  time 
as  wrong.  I  feel  that  my  convictions,  based  on  the 
study  of  the  structure  of  the  earth,  are  more  sure  than  my 
interpretations  of  the  fragmentary  notices  handed  down 
in  thirty-one  verses  of  Scripture. 

But  again  I  repeat,  I  do  not  believe  there  is  any 
disagreement,  and  for  the  reasons  which  I  shall  now  pro- 
ceed to  give. 

First,  let  us  endeavour  to  arrive  at  some  at  least  pro- 
bable meaning  of  this  word  day. 

I  know  it  was  not  a  day. 

I  at  once  feel  inclined  to  speculate  as  to  what  these 
days  mean;  but,  at  the  same  time,  I  am  bound  to  recognize 
the  fact  that  I  can  but  speculate,  while  I  am  thankful  that 
no  part  of  my  morality,  no  part  of  salvation,  depends  in 
the  slightest  degree  upon  the  questions  connected  with 
the  origin  of  the  world.  I  can  perceive  clearly  that  the 
real  object  of  Scripture  has,  so  to  say,  nothing  to  do  with 
the  first  chapter  of  Genesis,  and  so  I  am  indifferent  as  to 
whether  my  suppositions  be  true  or  not. 

We  have  seen  sufficient  of  the  objects  of  Scripture  to 
know  that  they  are  for  the  good  of  man,  for  the  develop- 
ment of  his  morality  and  religion ;  and  though  we  may 
find  an  account  of  the  creation,  it  matters  not  whether  we 
understand  it,  or  fail  to  do  so,  that  is,  so  far  as  the  good 
of  our  souls  is  concerned. 


Because  distmct  in  their  Spheres  of  Thought.     1 29 

Let  us  now  enter  upon  a  short  enquiry  as  to  the  pro- 
bable meaning  of  the  word  "  day." 

The  first  thing  I  notice  is  that  the  writer  could  not 
have  been  present,  nor  a  witness  of  the  progress  of  crea- 
tion. No  man  was  alive.  How,  then,  was  a  knowledge 
acquired  ? 

On  reading  the  injunctions  from  the  Lord  so  frequent 
during  the  times  of  the  kings  of  Israel  and  Judah,  there 
is  the  frequent  expression,  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord,"  and 
then  follows  the  actual  words  as  uttered.  It  is  not  so 
here.  The  expressions  used  are  of  a  descriptive  style, 
as  if  from  an  observer  or  listener. 

May  not,  then,  these  descriptions  be  of  views  brought 
before  the  writer's  eye  during  six  distinct  nightly  visions  ? 
It  is  not  out  of  keeping  with  God's  methods  of  instruction 
to  adopt  dreams  and  visions,  while  the  remarkable  ex- 
pression that  the  evening  and  the  morning  were  a  day 
seems  to  lend  countenance  to  the  idea ;  for  the  views 
would  be,  so  to  say,  daylight  views,  though  seen  in  a  dream 
at  night,  that  is,  between  evening  and  a  morning. 

I  offer  this  to  be  accepted  or  rejected  as  any  man  thinks 
best,  and  as  the  only  interpretation  that  I  can  suggest. 
It  is  worth  while  observing,  if  this  was  the  origin  of  the 
days,  and  if  the  seer  was  left  to  make  his  own  observation, 
and  to  draw  his  own  inferences  from  the  sights  presented 
to  him,  describing  only  what  he  saw  and  heard,  that  there 
is  nothing  of  the  nature  oi  falsehood  either  here  or  in  the 
fourth  commandment,  any  more  than  in  the  words,  '*  Sun, 
stand  thou  still." 

If  in  either  case  the  expressions  were  used  for  the  pur 
pose  of  teaching  science,  it  might  perhaps  be  considered 
so ;  as  this  however  was  not  the  case,  neither  the  on^ 
nor  the  other  convey  any  falsehood.     "  For  in  six  dayi 

^^^   OP  THE 

fUHI7BRSITr: 


130      Science  and  Scripture  not  Antagonistic^ 

the  Lord  made  heaven  and  earth"  might  be  paraphrased 
somewhat  as  follows :  In  the  period  of  time  represented 
or  included  within  those  six  visions  of  the  Creator.  In 
fact,  here,  as  in  other  instances  of  Scripture,  appearances 
take  the  place  of  scientific  descriptions  of  facts,  and  do 
duty  for  them.  As  long  as  no  one  could  appreciate  the 
science,  and  while  the  appearance  would  convey  any 
lessons  more  truly  than  strictly  scientific  or  accurate  ex- 
pressions could  do,  then  the  best  way  to  convey  the 
truth  intended  is  clearly  by  means  of  the  appearances 
rather  than  the  actual  facts. 

In  suggesting  the  hypothesis  that  the  seer  was  pre- 
sented with  six  panoramic  views  of  creation,  I  would  add 
that  they  would  only  be  such  as  he  could  see  at  one 
glance.  There  is  no  necessity  to  beHeve,  even  if  it 
were  possible,  that  he  saw  the  whole  of  the  surface 
of  the  globe  at  each  time.  The  brief  description  of 
each  day  either  preclude  this  ideas,  or  else  he  de- 
scribed but  a  very  small  portion  of  what  he  saw.  I 
should  rather  feel  inclined  to  think  he  wrote  down  the 
most  conspicuous  features  of  the  landscape  which  met 
his  eye,  not  recording  anything  that  was  not  obviously 
exhibited  :  for  example,  no  mention  of  fishes  is  made, 
though  we  know  they  existed  in  large  numbers,  and  many 
of  great  size,  at  a  very  early  period  of  the  world's 
history. 

Let  us  now  consider  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis,  and 
see  if  it  be  really  possible  to  draw  at  least  some  parallel 
between  it  and  the  discoveries  of  geology. 

The  very  first  verse  has  called  forth  much  discussion. 
Some  persons,  still  clinging  to  the  idea  of  six  literal 
days,  fancy  that  the  whole  of  geological  discoveries 
are  included,   or  rather  passed  over,  under  that  first 


Because  distinct  in  their  Spheres  of  Thought.     131 

verse,  and  that  a  new  world  arose  out  of  its  chaotic 
dissolution. 

I  see  no  warrant  for  that  idea  whatever.  I  rather 
would  suggest  that  it  is  a  sort  of  heading  to  the  account 
about  to  follow;  just  as  we  adopt  some  expression  to 
convey  the  general  meaning  of  a  chapter  in  a  book.  Or 
it  may  have  been  a  preliminary  protest  against  the  idea 
of  a  self-existing  world  without  a  personal  God. 

At  all  events,  I  fancy  I  see  so  close  a  parallel  between 
these  days  of  Genesis  and  periods  of  geology,  as  to 
lead  me  to  require  no  such  hypothesis  as  the  one  men- 
tioned above. 

One  more  remark  upon  the  scope  of  geology.  Geology 
proper,  or  uniformitarian  *  geology,  does  not  profess  to  go 
beyond  objective  facts,  or  to  attempt  more  than  reason- 
able deduction.  Speculative  geology,  however,  embraces 
much  more  than  this,  and  ventures  to  treat  of  the  early 
cosmical  conditions. 

We  must  remember,  however,  that  all  theories  about 
those  supposed  conditions  are  purely  hypothetical,  and 
must  be  held  accordingly  with  a  light  hand  in  proportion 
to  the  want  of  strict  evidence. 

Now  the  generally  accepted  theory  is  the  "nebular," 
viz.,  that  our  system,  />.,  the  sun  and  all  its  attendant 
planets,  was  once  a  vast  nebula,  or  an  immense  volume 
of  incandescent  gases.  This  by  condensation  would 
produce  light  and  heat.  At  that  time  the  earth  could 
have  had  no  "  form  "  whatever.  As  soon,  however,  as 
one  special  condensation  had  produced  the  earth,  apart 
from  the  greater  condensation  forming  the  sun,  and 
a  terrestial  revolution  had  begun,  "  day  and  night  "  must 

*  This  word  implies  that  the  processes  of  change  which  are  going 
on  now  have  ever  been  the  same  through  all  ages  of  the  world. 


132      Science  and  Scripture  not  Antagonistic,  < 

have  followed.  In  other  words,  as  soon  as  the  earth  had 
ceased  to  be  a  self-luminous  star,  and  had  become  an 
opaque,  non-luminous  body. 

Before  proceeding  further,  let  the  reader  note  the  ex- 
treme brevity  of  the  account  in  Genesis ;  for  the  successive 
conditions  of  the  world  were  probably  at  first  gaseous  ; 
secondly,  that  of  a  star;  and  lastly,  that  of  an  earth. 

Incandescent  vapour  first  gives  light.  (Compare 
Genesis  i.  3.)  The  earth  was  next  self-luminous ;  this 
condition  appears  to  have  been  passed  over  in  Genesis ; 
but  the  next  period,  i.e.,  as  soon  as  the  crust  was  formed, 
may  possibly  be  referred  to  indirectly  by  the  establishment 
of  day  and  night  (verse  5). 

The  subsequent  condition  supposed  by  geologists  is, 
that  an  envelope  of  dense  vapours,  of  steam,  salt,  etc., 
with  various  gases,  surrounded  the  crust  until  it  was 
cool  enough  to  allow  water  to  rest  upon  it.  The  atmos- 
phere, when  even  this  had  taken  place,  was  probably  for 
a  long  period  dense  and  vaporous,  such  as  may  be  that 
of  Jupiter  at  the  present  day.  The  salts,  etc.,  in  this 
atmosphere  would  gradually  subside,  and  be  absorbed  by 
the  water,  which  would  now  become  salt,  at  the  same 
time  clearing  the  atmosphere,  (firmament?)  which  would 
bear  the  lighter  vapours  only  above  it. 

Now,  some  such  appearances  as  suggested  by  this 
hypothesis  may  have  been  presented  to  the  seer;  *  for  it  is 
impossible  to  be  quite  certain  of  his  meaning  in  the  6th 
verse.  It  looks  as  if  he  were  merely  alluding  to  the 
clouds  in  the  air  and  the  sea  below ;  but  who  can  tell  he 
may  not  be  describing  other  appearances   in   ordinary 

*  May  not  the  fact  that  prophets  were  called  '*  Seers  "  before  the 
time  of  Samuel  lend  some  countenance  to  the  supposition  that  visions 
were  the  usual  means  of  communication  from  God  to  man  ? 


Because  distinct  in  their  Spheres  of  Thought.     133 

language,  totally  different  from,  but  bearing  some 
general  resemblance  to,  ordinary  atmospheric  pheno- 
mena. 

We  must  always  remember  what  I  have  already  in- 
sisted upon,  that  scientific  expressions  in  Scripture  are 
often,  if  not  always,  descriptive  appearances  of  facts,  but 
not  the  actual  facts  themselves. 

The  next  phenomenon  is  the  rising  of  land  out  of 
water,  and  is  a  fact  which  I  think  on  reflection  will  show 
how  true  it  is  that  appearances  are  only  described.  If 
an  island  rose  out  of  the  sea,  it  would  cause  the  water 
to  rush  away  from  it,  and  might  easily  give  the  appear- 
ance of  the  land  being  immovable,  while  the  water  fell 
away. 

Geology,  as  usual,  states  the  absolute  fact,  irrespective 
of  appearances,  and  tells  us  it  is  the  land  which  has 
risen,  while  the  sea  has  simply  retired  to  the  lowest 
levels. 

Geology  now  believes  the  world  to  have  had  a  sheet 
of  water  all  over  it,  and  the  seas  to  have  been  formed 
by  the  refrigeration  of  the  shell,  whereby  it  has  become 
wrinkled  by  contracting,  the  wrinkles  giving  rise  to 
mountains,  and  the  depressions  to  seas.  Here  therefore, 
as  before,  there  is  no  real  contradiction  to  science  in  the 
words  of  Scripture. 

Now  the  next  verse  (11)  brings  us  to  contemplate 
vegetation.  What  has  geology  to  say  on  this  subject? 
With  regard  to  vegetation,  we  know  that  at  one  period  of 
the  world's  history  we  have  discovered  a  very  great  deal 
more  than  of  any  other  period,  and  moreover  vegetation 
is  found  in  all  parts  of  the  world,  being  stored  up  in  the 
form  of  coal.  We  are  not  without  evidence  of  plant 
life   during   other  ages  \  but  no  discoveries  have  been 


134      Science  and  Scripture  not  Antagonistic^ 

made  of  anything  like  the  enormous  profusion  of  that 
particular  period. 

It  must  always  be  remembered  that  negative  evidence 
is  very  weak  in  geology ;  from  the  very  nature  of  the  case 
we  should  expect  much  more  evidence  of  marine  life, 
as  indeed  is  the  case,  than  of  any  other.  Nevertheless 
it  is  a  very  remarkable  fact  that  one  epoch  should  have 
revealed  to  us  such  a  vast  amount  of  evidence  of 
vegetable  life.  Again,  we  must  remember  that  this  vege- 
tation is  by  no  means  the  first  instances  of  life.  Every 
class  of  animal  as  high  as  reptiles  have  been  found  to 
have  existed  before  or  during  that  period.  Animal  life 
is  a  proof  in  itself  of  the  necessity  of  vegetation,  which 
must  have  existed,  though  the  evidences  yet  discovered 
are  exceedingly  scanty.  This  is  not  to  be  wondered  at, 
seeing  probably  about  the  ten  thousandth  part  of  the 
world  only  has  been  searched  (Huxley). 

Now,  then,  we  are  in  a  position  to  ask,  "  Does  the 
carboniferous  flora,  to  which  I  have  been  alluding,  repre- 
sent that  mentioned  in  verse  12  ?"  It  may  or  it  may 
not.     At  least  there  is  no  disagreement. 

We  now  come  to  the  most  difficult  part  of  all,  the 
14th  to  19th  verses.  It  is  quite  evident  that  some  light, 
visible  only  to  the  earth  for  twelve  hours,  existed  before, 
otherwise  day  and  night  could  not  have  been  established 
on  the  rotation  of  the  earth  (recorded  in  verse  4).  The 
interpretation,  hitherto  given  to  explain  this  are  probably 
very  wide  of  the  truth,  such  as  a  larger  amount  of  car- 
bonic acid  and  vapour  in  the  air,  which  it  is  supposed 
had  hitherto  obscured  the  sun.  This  can  easily  be 
shown  to  be  absurd  ;  or,  again,  that  the  earth  was  lighted 
by  auroras.  I  might  suggest  another  perhaps  equally 
erroneous,  that  the  condensation  of  incandescent  vapour 


Because  distinct  in  their  Spheres  of  Thought.     135 

had  taken  far  longer  time  with  the  sun  than  with  the 
earth,  and  it  might  have  had  no  appearance  until  the 
fourth  day  of  a  sharply- defined  orb,  as  it  is  now. 

But  it  is  better  to  confess  our  ignorance,  and  to  believe, 
that  had  we  seen  it  as  the  observer  saw  it,  or  did  we  know 
all,  the  description  of  the  fourth  day  would  be  perfectly 
clear.  As  it  stands,  however,  geology  has  nothing  to  offer 
either  for  or  against  it.  Now  let  us  pass  on  to  the  20th 
verse  ;  here  we  suddenly  find  ourselves  introduced  to  mov- 
ing, that  is,  creeping  creatures  and  fowl,  while  the  word 
whale  is  a  mistranslation,  the  Hebrew  word  {Tannin) 
signifying  a  "  sea  monster,"  probably  not  that  cetacean  at 
all.  Let  us  compare  this  account  with  what  geology  has 
to  reveal.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  an  enormous  number  of 
reptiles  of  all  sizes  existed  abyndantly,  some  of  them  attain- 
ing gigantic  dimensions,  and  well  deserving  of  the  name  of 
sea  monster,  some  being  forty  feet  in  length,  with  jaws  six 
feet  long,  and  more  than  180  large  teeth.  These  mon- 
sters appear  to  have  been  accompanied  not  only  by 
strange  birds,  quite  unlike  modern  types,  but  also  by 
flying  reptiles,  varying  in  size  from  a  few  inches  to  twenty 
feet  across. 

Now  a  person  taking  a  survey  of  the  world  at  this 
period,  he  could  not  fail  to  be  struck  with  the  vast 
and  numerous  forms  of  reptilian  life  associated  with  many 
strange  and  large  fowl,  by  which  term  he  would  probably 
include  the  winged  reptiles  alluded  to. 

Again  let  us  ask  the  question.  Does  geology  contradict 
Genesis  ?  The  answer  is  that  the  creation  of  the  fifth 
day  agrees  marvellously  well  with  the  Mesozoic  age  of 
geology,  or  the  "  Age  of  Reptiles  "  as  it  has  been  called. 

We  have  but  one  more  day  to  consider.  On  this  are 
brought  forth  living  creatures  (not  described  as  moving 


136      Science  and  Scriptttre  not  Antagonistic, 

observe,  a  term  which  is  more  expressive  of  unwieldy- 
reptiles).  "Cattle"  are  mentioned,  "beasts  of  the 
earth,"  and  "creeping  things,"  as  apparently  distin- 
guished from  the  sea  monster  of  the  fifth  day.  What 
has  Geology  to  say  ?  that  after  the  age  of  reptiles  had 
passed  away,  there  followed  a  long  period  represented 
to  us  by  a  series  of  **beds"  containing  great  and 
numerous  successions  of  quadrupedal  Hfe.  The  first 
totally  unhke  the  present  existing  races,  but  gradually 
approaching  the  form  and  structure  of  existing  beasts, 
till  at  last  they  appear  identical.  And  what  is  more 
significant  is  the  fact  that  the  evidence  of  man's  ex- 
istence has  been  found  associated  with  the  latest  series, 
not  in  a  separate  deposit  of  a  later  date  than  those  con- 
taining extinct  forms,  but  accompany  them  in  such  a 
way  as  to  necessitate  the  belief  that  he  was  one  of  the 
creatures  which  appeared  together. 

Had  he  a  separate  day,  according  to  Genesis  ? 

The  sixth  day  witnessed  the  in-coming  of  man,  as  well 
as  the  beasts  of  the  field. 

Do  Genesis  and  Geology  agree,  or  does  Geology  run 
counted  to  Genesis  ? 

Thus  far  I  trust  the  reader  will  not  hesitate  to  reply 
that  there  is  no  contradiction  whatever. 


PART  IV. 

THE   DOCTRINE   OF   EVOLUTION. 

There  yet  remains,  or  rather  has  lately  risen  in  the 
minds  of  some,  a  new  doubt  with  reference  to  Science, 


Because  distinct  in  their  Spheres  of  Thought,     137 

and  that  is  whether  the  Doctrine  of  Evolution  or  Deve- 
lopment of  life  will  not  prove  to  run  counter  to  the 
history  of  creation  as  given  in  Genesis. 

Let  us  turn  to  Genesis  :  with  reference  to  creative 
facts,  we  find  no  explanation  whatever  as  to  the  process 
of  creation.  The  bare  fact  only  is  stated  in  the  words 
God  "created"  {Barah)  or  "God  made"  {Asah);  no 
perceptible  difference  being  discoverable  between  these 
words.  Moreover  nothing  is  told  us  whether  the  "  heaven 
and  the  earth"  were  created  out  of  nothing  or  out  of 
pre-existing  matter. 

Now  we  must  carefully  observe  that  there  is  a  second 
kind  of  expression  used  in  this  same  first  chapter  of 
Genesis,  with  reference  to  creation;  namely,  ^^ Let  the 
waters  and  the  earth  bring  forth'^  We  have  here  the 
imperative  mood,  and  the  use  of  such  expressions  can 
^nly  imply  other  agents  than  the  speaker.  The  inference, 
therefore,  seems  to  be  that  secondary  agents,  represented 
by  the  water  and  the  earth,  are  here  enjoined  to  carry  out 
the  will  of  the  Lord. 

The  conclusion  one  can  only  arrive  at  is,  that  both  ex- 
pressions are  of  equivalent  value ;  so  that  when  nature 
produces  any  effects,  those  effects  are  due  to  the  will  of 
God,  while  the  latter  of  the  expressions  strongly  encourages 
the  idea  of  secondary  intermediary  agents,  rather  than 
direct  creative  fiats.  The  notion  of  the  evolution  of 
living  things  arises  from  an  impartial  study  of  nature ;  and 
whatever  be  the  cause  of  it,  the  probability  of  the  truth  of 
evolution  far  outweighs  the  idea  that  every  animal  and 
plant  has  been  respectively  due  to  creative  fiats.  It 
would  be  out  of  place  to  give  any  lengthy  evidence  of 
the  truth  of  evolution ;  at  least  up  to,  for  I  believe  it  is 
not  inclusive  of  man,  the  truth  of  evolution  is  a  moral 


138      Science  and  Scripture  not  Antagonistic ^ 

conviction  ;  and  if  Genesis  does  not  palpably  refer  to  it,  it 
at  least  lends  it  encouragement  by  the  frequent  use  of 
the  imperative  mood,  as  quoted  above. 

Even  with  regard  to  man,  Genesis  only  says  man  was 
created  out  of  the  dust  of  the  earth :  but  all  animals  are 
so  likewise.  There  is  neither  assent  nor  denial  of  evolu- 
tion of  man.  Reason,  however,  while  recognizing  the 
fact  that  man's  body  cannot  be  separated  from  the 
higher  order  of  animals  entirely,  yet  perceives  that  in  his 
entirety  constitutes  a  different  family  :  yet  in  his  intellect 
he  is  so  far  in  advance,  and  in  his  morality  absolutely 
severed,  that  the  gap  between  him  and  them  cannot  be 
accounted  for  on  any  principle  of  development  at  pre- 
sent known;  and  gives  us  altogether  the  idea  of  some 
special  interference. 

Now  this  is  also,  as  it  seems,  told  us  in  Genesis.  Th^ 
unusual  expression,  "  Let  us  make  man,"  implying,  as  I 
believe,  that  interference ;  while  the  "  breath  of  life  which 
causes  man  to  become  a  living  soul,"  may,  I  also  believe, 
be  seen  in  his  morality,  which  does  completely  sever 
him  from  all  other  animals.* 

The  general  result,  then,  at  which  we  have  arrived,  is, 
that  while  Genesis  may  not  forcibly  bear  witness  either 
to  geology  or  evolution,  it  in  no  way  contradicts  them ; 
nay,  rather  the  reverse,  it  appears  to  hint  at  both.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  evidences  of  geology,  and  the  truth 
of  evolution,  which  have  been  acquired  from  a  close 
tudy  ot  natnre,  cannot  now  be  gainsayed.  The  more 
one  studies  nature,  the  more  one  feels  convinced  that 
had  we  perfect  knowledge  of  all  things,  the  harmony 
between  Genesis  and  geology,  and  between  the  processes 

*  See  Mr.  Darwin's  Descent  of  Man,  "  Man  alone  is  moral." 


Because  distinct  in  their  Spheres  of  Thought.     1 39 

of  creation  recorded  in  Scripture,  and  evolution,  would 
be  perfect  and  absolute. 

I  trust  I  shall  have  now  succeeded  in  this  brief  review 
of  Genesis  and  geology  to  prove  that  the  charge  of  being 
incorrect  brought  against  Scripture  is  unfounded. 

Once  more,  bearing  in  mind  that  the  object  of  the 
Scriptures  is  the  elevation  of  the  moral  character  of  man, 
let  us  see  if  nature,  scientifically  considered,  lends  other 
aid  to  support  the  truthfulness  of  Scripture  than  is  to  be 
found  in  its  harmony  with  Genesis. 

The  first  thing  which  strikes  the  student  as  soon  as  he 
has  acquired  a  considerable  range  of  knowledge  over  the 
several  departments  of  nature,  is  the  grand  imity  of 
principle  which  pervades  the  whole.  Let  me  illustrate 
this.  If  we  take  all  the  vertebrata,  or  animals  which 
possess  a  "backbone,"  whether  we  examine  living  or 
extinct  forms,  we  find  they  are  all  constructed  on  the 
same  identical  plan  of  type. 

The  homologous  parts  are  marvellously  modified  to 
suit  the  different  kinds  of  habits.  Thus  the  arm  and 
hand  of  a  man,  the  fore  leg  of  a  horse,  the  wing  of  a  bat 
or  bird,  the  paddles  of  a  whale,  are  all  modifications  of 
one  and  the  same  organ.  Similarly  all  the  other  members 
of  the  different  types  ;  so  that  all  living  creatures  can  be 
reduced  to  a  few,  say  about  five,  fundamental  types. 
The  same  fact  is  applicable  to  plants,  both  to  the  vege- 
table kingdom  as  a  whole,  as  well  as  to  the  separate 
organs  of  an  individual  plant;  leaves,  scales,  petals, 
stamens,  etc.,  being  all  modifications  of  the  same  thing, 
and  reducible  to  one  type. 

Unity  of  plan  with  diversity  of  result  is  to  be  seen 
everywhere  running  through  nature.  Now  read  the 
Scriptures.    One  God  is  enforced  throughout :  "  Hear,  O 


140      Science  and  Scripture  not  Antagonistic, 

Israel,  the  Lord  your  God  is  one  Lord ; "  "  Thou  shalt 
have  none  other  gods  but  me."  Again,  "  God  is  Love ; '' 
and  the  various  phases  of  Divine  attributes,  mercy,  justice, 
benevolence,  are  but  differentiated  forms  of  one  and  the 
same  power  typified  in  love.  Again,  note  how  unchange- 
able are  the  laws  of  nature  ;  and  so  God  says  of  Himself, 
"  I  change  not ; "  "I  am  not  a  man,  that  I  should  lie ; 
or  the  son  of  man,  that  I  should  repent."  "What  a 
man  soweth,  that  shall  he  also  reap,"  is  expressive  both 
of  the  laws  of  nature  as  of  morality. 

The  humble  and  pious  mind  cannot  fail  to  feel,  if  not 
to  see,  that  there  is  an  ever-abiding  presence  of  a  con- 
serving power ;  and  if  we  turn  to  Scripture,  we  are  there 
told  that  it  is  "in  Him  we  Hve,  move,  and  have  our 
being." 

Nay,  more :  the  catastrophes  of  nature,  the  physical 
evils  which  surround  us,  the  troubles,  toils,  cares,  and 
anxieties  to  which  we  are  born,  and  if  not  those  of  our 
own  causing,  are  as  much  a  part  of  nature  as  they  are 
necessary  for  the  moral  growth  of  men.  They  constitute 
the  "inideal"*  conditions  by  which  man  is  surrounded 
while  resident  in  this  world  for  a  disciplinary  process  to 
fit  him  for  eternity.  Turn  to  the  Scriptures,  and  we  find 
it  to  be  the  same  God  who  there  declares  it  to  be  His 
will ;  for  He  says  by  Isaiah,  "  I  cause  good,  and  I  create 
evil." 

On  the  other  hand,  regarding  nature  apart  from 
physical  evils,  we  see  the  abundant  harvests  and  the  rich 
fruits  of  the  earth  poured  forth  in  plenty ;  her  corn,  wine, 

*  The  words  "  inideal "  and  '^inidealiiy  "  are  suggested  to  express 
the  relative  state  of  perfection  of  this  world,  and  that  the  ideal  is 
never  reached. 


Because  distinct  in  their  Spheres  of  Thought.     141 

and  oil,  iron,  gold,  and  silver  in  abundance,  and  all  other 
things  to  the  hand  of  man  that  he  requires ;  and  we 
cannot  but  bless  that  bountiful  nature  who  gives  so 
much  to  her  patient  toiler — man. 

Turn  to  the  Scriptures,  and  we  find  God  not  only  des- 
cribed as  the  God  of  nature,  and  the  "giver  of  all  good 
things  to  man,"  but  also  "the  abundant  Rewarder  of 
him  that  doeth  right."  On  the  other  hand,  just  as 
an  earthquake  may  seemingly  ruthlessly  destroy  the  fair 
cities  of  men,  or  a  tempest  deprive  him  of  his  expected 
harvests ;  so  is  God  described  as  the  "  Revenger  of  all 
them  that  do  evil." 

Now  in  these  few  contrasts  we  have  seen  that  while 
nature,  on  the  one  hand,  seems  to  pour  forth  the  utmost 
of  her  bounties;  on  the  other  hand,  her  forces  sometimes 
become  pent  up,  and  then  suddenly  burst  forth  and 
destroy  all  her  intended  offerings  to  man. 

What  is  the  meaning  of  this  seemingly  capricious  con- 
duct ?  Let  us  first  note  our  own  inward  consciousness 
as  to  the  relationship  in  vhich  we  stand  to  nature. 

First,  we  can  recognise  this  imperfect  inideal  condition 
of  things,  and  we  can  imagine  and  long  for  a  state  of 
existence  free  from  all  care  whatever,  from  the  most 
trivial  to  the  most  agonising  terror,  distress,  or  pain. 

Now,  I  see  nothing  in  nature  which  responds  to  this 
yearning  for  a  happier  state  of  things ;  I  am  driven,  then, 
to  the  conclusion  that  this  feeling  ever  rising  in  my 
heart  does  not  arise  from  experience.  It  is  inborn,  and 
craves  for  a  response  from  nature.  If  I  cannot  get  rest 
and  perfect  happiness  here,  I  shall  surely  obtain  it  else- 
where ;  then  it  must  be  that  /  shall  live  again  \  that  is  the 
discovery  at  which  I  am  compelled  to  arrive,  while  con- 
science, arising  at  my  disobedience  to  law,  leads  me  to 


142      Science  and  Scripture  not  Antagonistic. 

think  that  my  state  here  is  probational  only,  and  that 
if  I  live  according  to  the  light  I  possess,  it  will  be  well 
with  me  hereafter. 

Now  let  us  turn  once  more  to  the  Scriptures,  and  we 
shall  find  that  all  will  become  clear.  These  natural 
yearnings  receive  their  promise  of  reward.  The  con- 
ditions which  the  blind  soul  had  faintly  traced  in  the 
glimmer  of  light  received  from  nature  alone  are  there  re- 
vealed; and  we  rise  from  that  book  convinced  of  its 
truth  from  the  harmony  between  its  teaching  and  those 
of  nature.  The  cravings  of  the  heart  and  the  deductions 
of  the  intellect  are  there  found  revealed  and  made  plain. 
Aye,  and  what  is  more,  our  conscience  has  accused  us 
again  and  again  for  having  broken  nature's  laws,  and  we 
knew  not  how  to  compensate  nature.  In  Scripture  we 
find  they  are  God's  laws,  and  we  crave  for  pardon. 

He  tells  us  He  has  pardoned  us ;  for  His  Son  has  died 
that  we  may  live  ! 

Henceforth  let  us  study  the  Scriptures  in  conjunction 
with  nature,  being  well  assured  now,  that  the  more  we 
know  of  each,  the  greater  will  be  their  harmony.  And 
that  while  we  do  our  duty,  living  in  hope  and  faith,  we 
shall  not  fail  of  that  heavenly  reward  which  is  the  only 
solution  of  the  great  problem  of  life  ;  the  only  clue  to 
unravel  the  apparently  inexplicable  mystery  of  physical 
evil. 


THE  MORAL  TEACHING  OF  THE  OLD 
TESTAMENT  VINDICATED. 


REV.  J.    H.   TITCOMB,    M.A., 

VICAR  OF  ST.  Stephen's,  south  lambeth,  and  rural  dean  of  clapham. 


The  Moral  Teaching  of  the  Old 
Testament  Vindicated. 


IN  introducing  this  subject  to  your  notice,  gentlemen, 
I  mean  to  take'  three  things  for  granted  :  first,  that  I 
am  not  to  be  held  responsible  for  the  views  of  other 
people,  but  only  for  my  own ;  secondly,  that  you  are  all 
sincere  inquirers  after  truth ;  and  thirdly,  that  no  one 
desires  to  raise  a  false  issue  upon  the  question  which  is 
to  come  under  discussion. 

Let  me  commence,  then,  by  plainly  stating  what  it  is  I 
have  to  do.  I  have  not  to  argue  whether  a  Divine 
revelation  be,  in  itself,  either  possible  or  probable. 
The  position  is  simply  this :  Here  is  a  volume,  called 
the  Old  Testament  Scripture,  which  we  Christians  receive 
as  containing  a  revelation  from  God  to  man.  Against 
that  opinion  you,  on  your  part,  may  have  a  hundred 
different  arguments ;  but  it  is  only  with  one  of  these  that 
I  am  now  concerned;  viz.,  those  difficulties  of  belief 
which  arise  out  of  its  moral  teaching.  You  tell  me  that, 
scattered  up  and  down  this  volume,  there  are  some  parts 
so  inconsistent  with  pure  morality,  as  at  once  to  disprove 
its  derivation  from  a  holy  God.  My  business  to-night, 
therefore,  will  not  be  to  prove  that  a  revelation  exists, 
but,  taking  this  book  into  my  hand,  which  professes  to 

lO 


146  The  Moral  Teaching  of  the 

contain  such  a  revelation,  I  shall  have  to  vindicate  its 
teaching  as  consistent  with  the  moral  being  of  the  Deity. 

That  is,  I  think,  a  fair  statement  of  the  case.  Con- 
sequently, if,  in  the  discussion  which  is  to  ensue,  any 
gentleman  confuses  the  debate  by  introducing  into  it 
irrelevant  matter,  I  shall  immediately  ask  the  chairman 
to  interpose. 

One  thing  further  by  way  of  preface.  I  charge  you  to 
be  true  to  the  dogma  that  aboriginal  man  was  a  naked 
savage,  who,  passing  through  a  long  course  of  barbarity 
and  moral  debasement,  came  only  gradually  into  a  state 
of  respectable  civilization  !  This  may  sound  strange 
and  very  unexpected.  Yet  you  cannot  refuse  to  accept 
the  position.  It  is  the  chosen  ground  of  modern  scepti- 
cism, and  therefore  no  unbeliever  has  a  right  to  move 
from  it. 

r.  Do  not  suppose  that  we  ourselves  believe  in  this 
origin  of  man.  On  the  contrary,  we  maintain  that  he  was 
primevally  good  and  noble  ;  formed,  both  mentally  and 
spiritually,  in  the  image  of  his  great  Creator.  At  the 
same  time  we  believe  in  a  mysteriously  permitted  fall, 
which  not  only  resulted  in  man's  moral  degradation,  but, 
curiously  enough,  brought  about  a  state  of  society 
harmonizing,  in  a  great  measure,  with  your  own  con- 
ceptions of  the  subject.  Why  that  fall  from  original 
perfection  was  permitted  by  a  wise  and  holy  God,  and 
all  its  consequent  train  of  evils  allowed  to  be  intro- 
duced into  the  world,  is  a  question  upon  which  you  will, 
perhaps,  expect  me  to  say  a  few  words.  You  will  observe, 
however,  I  am  not  called  upon,  under  the  terms  of  this 
lecture,  to  expound  the  difficulty,  but  only  to  vindi- 
cate the  character  of  the  moral  teaching  which  it 
involves.     Now  on  what  ground  do  you  impeach  this  ? 


Old  Testament  Vindicated,  147 

If  I  maintain  that  the  possibiHty  of  the  moral  fall  of  a 
finite  being  from  his  first  created  perfection  is  and  always 
must  be  an  inevitably  necessary  postulate  in  the  con- 
ditions of  his  personal  freedom,  you  may  argue  that  I 
limit  the  Divine  omnipotence.  I  reply  that  it  is  no 
impeachment  of  omnipotence  to  say  that  God  is  Himself 
limited  by  certain  immutable  laws  of  truth,  which  are 
among  the  essential  ingredients  of  His  own  self-existence. 
For  example,  no  one  can  fairly  impeach  God's  omni- 
potence because  He  is  unable  to  make  two  and  two 
equal  three.  In  the  same  way,  no  one  can  do  so,  if, 
in  creating  finite  moral  agents  subordinated  to  His  own 
government,  it  was  impossible  for  Him  to  have  made 
them  as  omnipotent  as  Himself  Had  that  been  so,  it  is 
true  they  would  never  have  fallen.  But  then  it  would 
have  been  the  multiplication  of  separate  Gods,  not  the 
creation  of  dependent  moral  agents ;  and  that  is  so  self- 
contradictory  as  to  be  utterly  inconceivable. 

This  necessary  condition  of  things,  then,  was  as  much 
the  outcome  of  an  eternal  and  immutable  law  belonging 
to  the  Divine  self-existence,  as  the  law  which  makes  one 
less  than  two,  or  the  part  inferior  to  the  whole.  Now, 
you  must  not  rise  up,  here,  gentlemen,  and  dispute 
the  existence  of  God  altogether.  For,  observe,  that  is 
not  the  question  to-night.  You  are  consenting  to  examine 
now  a  certain  Book,  which  professes  to  contain  a  revela- 
tion from  God.  The  argument  is  not  whether  this 
revelation  be  either  possible  or  probable ;  but  whether, 
on  the  assumption  that  the  Bible  be  such  a  revelation,  its 
moral  teaching  in  the  Old  Testament  does,  or  does  not, 
violate  the  essential  conditions  of  Divine  Love,  Truth,  and 
Holiness. 
-  Perhaps  you  tell  me  that  "  the  creation  cf  man,  with  a 


148  The  Moral  Teaching  of  the 

foreknowledge  of  his  fall,  involving  the  deliberate  intro- 
duction of  all  its  conseqent  miseries  into  the  world,  does 
impeach  the  Divine  love."  You  say  that,  "if  such  a  con- 
tingency were  necessarily  possible,  and  still  more,  if  it  were 
foreseen,  it  could  not  have  been  consistent  with  Infinite 
Love  to  have  given  those  evils  any  opportunity  of  bursting 
forth ;  that  God  might  have  interposed  by  His  omnipotence 
to  nip  them  then  in  the  bud,  and  so  have  preserved  all 
things  pure  and  perfect  and  happy;  and  that  a  book 
which  gives  such  a  different  account  of  things  cannot  be 
a  true  revelation/' 

I  reply,  that  if  we  were  fully  acquainted  with  the  facts 
of  the  moral  universe, — if  we  knew  for  certain  every 
part  of  the  Divine  administration  throughout  a  multitude 
of  other  inhabited  worlds  than  our  own, — if  every  other 
providential  dispensation,  and  all  their  diversified  relations 
to  those  of  our  own  world,  were  plainly  within  the  field  of 
our  view,  and  everything  presented  just  the  same  sin  and 
misery  in  those  worlds  as  in  ours,  then  this  reasoning  might 
be  very  plausible  and  good.  But  seeing  it  is  not  so  ; 
seeing  that  we  know  only  a  part  of  the  case  ;  that  possibly 
there  may  be  many  hidden  relationships  between  other 
worlds  and  ours,  of  which  we  are  entirely  ignorant,  and 
which,  if  thoroughly  understood,  might  convert  these 
objections  against  the  love  and  goodness  of  God  into 
arguments  of  an  altogether  opposite  nature,  I  have  a  right 
to  disregard  them  as  involving  hasty  and  unnecessary 
conclusions.  Let  me  illustrate  what  I  mean.  You  might 
argue^in  the  same  way,  at  first  sight,  that  the  creation  of 
man,  having  nerves  which  are  exquisitely  sensitive  to 
bodily  pain,  and  their  exposure,  notwithstanding,  to  the 
action  of  fire,  is  quite  inconsistent  with  the  character 
of  a  God   of  goodness  and   love.      Think  only  of  the 


Old  Testament  Vindicated,  149 

miseries  which  have  ensued  from  burnings  and  scaldings, 
and  of  the  horrible  agony  suffered  by  the  human  body 
in  consequence  of  the  deHcate  organisation  of  its  ner- 
vous system.  You  may  say,  "How  can  you  talk  to  us 
of  a  God  of  love  when  He  has  made  man  thus,  and 
exposed  him  to  all  these  evils?"  Yet  you  know  well 
enough,  gentlemen,  that  the  sufferings  thus  permitted  by 
God's  providence  do  indirectly  promote  the  general 
happiness  of  mankind,  even  though  it  be  at  the  expense 
of  many  burnt  and  scalded  individuals.  For  were 
our  bodies  not  thus  sensitive  to  pain,  we  should  have  no 
warning  against  danger,  and  might  be  injured  in  our 
hmbs  and  lives  perpetually  before  we  had  time  to  avert 
the  misfortune.  If,  then,  there  are  evils  in  the  natwal 
world,  which  thus  serve  the  purposes  of  an  ulterior  and 
general  benevolence,  why  may  not  the  same  principle  be 
supposed  to  exist  in  regard  to  the  7noral  world  ?  Why 
should  not  the  miseries  which  the  fall  of  man  has 
introduced  among  ourselves  stand  exactly  in  the  same 
relation  to  other  created  intelligences  as  the  burnings  and 
scaldings  of  individual  sufferers  do  to  the  general  com- 
munity around  us,  who  thus  mercifully  learn  and  profit 
through  the  ill-fated  experience  of  others  ? 

The  doubt  you  feel  on  this  question,  therefore,  is  not 
any  necessary  and  inherent  difficulty  in  the  moral 
teaching  of  Scripture,  but  simply  one  which  arises  from 
the  imperfect  consciousness  of  man  respecting  the  entire 
administration  of  God's  moral  purposes  throughout  other 
portions  of  the  universe. 

2.  Time  aUowing  me  to  say  no  more  on  this  point,  I 
now  come  back  to  that  from  which  I  just  diverged,  viz., 
the  effects  of  the  fall  of  man  in  the  moral  deterioration 
of  society. 


150  The  Moral  Teaching  of  the 

No  one  can  read  the  early  part  of  the  Old  Testament 
without  seeing   that,  after  the   fall  of   man,   the  world 
became  morally  and  socially  degenerate.     In  regard  to 
material   civilization,     it    was    some     years     before     a 
city  was   built;*  and   still   longer,   probably  centuries, 
before  any  portion   of  mankind  had  ceased  to  live  in 
what  is  popularly  called  a  stone  age,  or  learnt  the  use  of 
metals  and  musical  instruments.!     In  regard  to  moral 
civilization,  barbarity  and  lawlessness  seemed   to   have 
grown  worse  and  worse.     Beginning  with  the  murder  of 
Abel,  it  went  on  through  a  long  period  of  violence  and 
vice,  which  culminated  in  an  age  when,  to  use  the  words 
of  the  Bible,   "  the  wickedness  of  man  was  great  in  the 
earth,  and  the  imagination  of  the  thoughts  of  his  heart 
was   only   evil   continually ;" ;{:  and   again,    when    "the 
earth  was  corrupt  before  God,  and  filled  with  violence."  || 
You  certainly  cannot  be  scandalised,  gentlemen,  at  this 
picture    of  the   world's    early  history;  for,    though    you 
start  from  a  different  origin  of  it  yourselves,  yet  your  own 
theory  of  man's  primeval  savagery  exactly  squares  with 
its  main  outlines.     Here  we  stand,  at  all  events,   on  a 
common  platform.     All  is  confusion,  brutality,  and  dis- 
organisation. 

3.  Coalescing,  however,  at  this  point,  we  are  doomed  in 
a  moment  to  part  company.  For  when  we  go  on  to  read 
in  Scripture  that  God  "repented  He  had  made  man," 
and  that  He  destroyed  the  whole  race,  save  one  family, 
by  a  flood,  you  at  once  impeach  the  moral  teaching  of  the 
Bible,  and  say  "that  this  representation  of  an  infinitely 
wise,  perfect,  and  unchangeable  Deity  is  utterly  incredible; 
and   that   a  book  which  thus  describes  a  disappointed 

*  Gen.  iv.  17.  %  Gen.  vi.  5. 

+  Gen.  iv.  21,  22.  |1  Gen.  vi.  11. 


Old  Testament  Vindicated.  151 

God,  whose  only  remedy  lay  in  destroying  the  work  of 
His  own  hands,  cannot  be  a  true  revelation." 

You  applaud  the  sentiment !  Yes,  gentlemen.  But 
that  only  shows  how  thoroughly  we  understand  you,  and 
how  little  we  are  careful  to  blink  the  apparent  difficulties 
of  the  argument.  Do  you  suppose  that  you  are  the  only 
person  to  whom  this  language  has  proved  perplexing? 
Do  you  think  that  we,  who  believe,  have  not  as  intelligent 
a  perception  of  Scripture  difficulties  as  yourselves  }  The 
difference  between  us  is,  that  you  read  the  words  in  ques- 
tion under  the  light  of  modern  knowledge,  just  as  if  they 
had  been  addressed  to  men  of  the  19th  century  ;  whereas 
we  read  them  (according  to  all  fair  laws  of  criticism) 
under  the  light  of  the  age  in  which  they  were  delivered, 
and  just  as  the  men  of  that  uneducated  and  uncivilised 
period  would  alone  have  been  able  to  understand  any 
revelation  of  the  Divine  mind  upon  this  subject.  Had 
words  of  an  abstract  and  philosophical  character  been 
employed  instead  of  this  simple  idea,  "  God  repented  thai 
He  had  made  man,"  they  would  have  been  totally  unsuited 
to  the  moral  and  intellectual  consciousness  of  so  degraded 
and  demoralised  a  race.  The  choice,  therefore,  of  imper- 
fect terms  of  speech  like  these  must  not  be  attributed  to 
the  fact  that  they  properly  represented  the  action  of  the 
Divine  mind ;  but  that  they  formed  the  most  ready 
vehicle  of  thought  through  which  even  the  least  approxi- 
mation to  the  truth  could  address  itself  to  the  perception 
of  such  people.  You  will  thus  perceive  in  a  moment,  gen- 
tlemen, (if  you  only  take  the  trouble  to  throw  your  minds 
into  the  circumstances  under  which  Scripture  describes 
the  revelation  to  have  been  communicated,)  that  the  low  * 
and  immature  form  of  this  statement  was  but  an  inevitable 
condition  of  the  case,  arising  from  the  impossibility  of 


152  The  Moral  Teaching  of  the 

any  more  abstract  and  philosophical  conceptions  being 
understood  at  the  time. 

4.  But  this  is  no  answer,  you  will  tell  me,  to  that  im- 
peachment of  the  Divine"  benevolence  which  sprang  out 
of  the  destruction  of  the  human  race  by  a  flood.  Certainly 
not,  for  we  must  take  one  thing  at  once.  Am  I  to  under- 
stand you,  however,  as  saying  that  a  God  of  love  and 
mercy  had  absolutely  no  moral  right  thus  to  destroy  His 
own  creation  on  account  of  its  prolonged  and  inveterate 
self-corruption,  after  He  had  warned  it,  and  been  patient 
with  it  through  centuries  of  protracted  long-suffering  ?  Are 
there  not  stages  of  moral  evil,  even  in  the  present  day, 
which  show  themselves  absolutely  irreclaimable  by  any 
remedies  known  to  man ;  crimes  so  deep  and  inveterate 
that  neither  mercy  nor  remedial  treatment  will  stop  them  ? 
Now  you  will  observe  from  the  narrative  that  this  was  just 
the  case  here.  Long-suffering  had  reached  its  utmost 
limit ;  corruption  and  rebellion  had  left  only  one  righteous 
family.  Hence,  if  permitted  longer,  the  very  last  remnant 
of  goodness  would  have  perished  out  of  the  earth ! 
What !  Do  you  mean  to  tell  me  that  it  would  have  been 
consistent  with  perfect  love  to  allow  the  last  spark  of 
moral  goodness  to  become  extinguished?  Are  all  the 
resources  of  love  and  mercy  to  be  spent  upon  the  wicked, 
and  none  to  be  exhibited  for  the  protection  of  the 
righteous  ?  Are  there  not  some  periods  and  cases,  even 
within  our  own  experience,  when  severe  judgments  on 
hardened  criminals  become  conservative  of  benevolence 
and  kindness  toward  the  innocent?  Would  any  just 
government  allow  assassins  to  go  through  a  country  com- 
mitting murder  and  rapine  upon  the  population,  and  cor- 
rupting the  vitals  of  society,  without  feeling  it  a  duty  to 
interfere  on  behalf  of  the  virtuous  ?     The  cases  are  exactly 


Old  Testament   Vindicated.  153 

analogous.  Only,  in  this  instance,  the  government  was 
God's,  and  the  corruption,  instead  of  being  partial,  was 
all  but  universal.  Look  at  the  case  fairly  in  this  light, 
gentlemen,  and  your  impeachment  of  the  Divine  goodness 
hopelessly  falls  to  the  ground. 

5.  Let  us  now  pass  on  to  the  picture  which  the  Old 
Testament  gives  of  the  state  of  the  world  after  that  awfal 
period.  Such  was  the  depravity  of  human  nature,  con- 
sequent upon  its  first  moral  fall,  that  we  find  evil  soon  re- 
appearing, and  again  becoming  dominant.  Witness  the 
enormities  related  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  the  dissolute 
and  disorganised  state  of  the  Canaan  ;tish  nations,  and  even 
the  violent  and  licentious  condition  of  Israel  under  the 
Judges.  Indeed,  it  scarcely  seems  too  much  to  say,  from 
a  careful  study  of  this  part  of  the  Old  Testament,  that 
there  was  as  low  a  level  of  general  morality,  and  as  little 
respect  for  human  life,  and  as  much  barbaric  cruelty,  as 
still  exists  in.  the  heathenism  of  Asia  and  Africa.  And 
here  you  will  be  pleased  to  recollect,  gentlemen,  that 
when  we  Christians  recognise  this  low  moral  condition 
of  the  primitive  races  of  mankind,  we  are  brought  on  to 
the  same  platform  as  yourselves,  who  hold  that  the 
origin  of  all  moral  and  material  civilization  may  be  traced 
through  a  passage  over  debased  periods  of  history  which 
were  marked  by  uncontrolled  licentiousness  and  un- 
civilised barbarism. 

Well  then,  that  being  so  far  agreed  upon,  only  see 
how  such  a  condition  of  things  must  have  necessarily 
affected  the  composition  of  a  book  which  professes  to 
contain  a  Divine  revelation  to  man.  The  position  is 
this  :  "  Given  a  state  of  degraded  barbarism  and  im- 
perfect moral  perceptions,  to  raise  it  to  one  of  elevation." 

One  thing,  by  a  law  of  common  sense,  is  clear :  that, 


154  T^^^^  Moral  Teaching  of  the 

unless  the  God  who  is  supposed  to  have  bestowed  this 
revelation  had  absolutely  forced  the  recipients  of  it  into  a 
compelled  state  of  blameless  obedience,  the  degraded 
age  in  which  they  thus  lived  must  have  largely  qualified 
the  nature  and  degree  of  their  moral  rectitude.  Yet,  I 
presume,  no  one  who  is  here  this  evening  will  dare  to 
rise  up  and  argue  that  it  could  ever  have  been  con- 
sistent with  the  genuine  idea  of  moral  progress,  that 
mankind  should  be  forced  into  holiness,  just  as 
lunatics  are  into  quietness,  by  means  of  handcuffs  and 
straight-waistcoats.  You  might  as  well  call  the  lions  in 
our  zoological  gardens  tame  and  domesticated  animals, 
or  the  cotton  looms  of  Manchester  moral  agents,  as 
evil  men  good,  when  only  made  so  compulsorily  after 
that  fashion.  Any  such  idea  as  that,  is,  I  am  persuaded, 
far  too  unphilosophical  and  unreasonable  to  satisfy  either 
the  intellect  or  the  moral  sense  of  an  audience  such 
as  this.  If  you  assume,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  there- 
fore, as  you  have  now  consented  to  do,  that  a  revelation 
may  have  been  given  to  man,  I  am  sure  you  will  allow 
that  it  must  still  have  left  him  exposed  to  his  natural 
struggle  with  debased  passions,  and  to  the  necessary 
influences  of  that  imperfect  civilization  by  which  he 
was  surrounded.  Consider  these  circumstances.  Ac- 
cording to  your  own  belief,  as  well  as  ours,  if  revelation 
came  to  man  at  all,  it  must  have  first  come  to  him  at  a 
time  when  his  naturally  uneducated  instincts  were  those  of 
cruelty,  treachery,  and  licentiousness.  What  impeach- 
ment, therefore,  can  be  honestly  brought  against  the 
purity  of  the  revelation  itself,  if  its  effects  upon  the  lives 
of  such  men  was  not  to  give  them  all  an  instant  and 
immediate  emancipation  from  their  antecedent  corrup- 
tions ?     On  what  fair  ground  could  you  expect  the  moral 


Old  Testament  Vindicated.  155 

advancement  to  be  anything  else  but  slow,  partial, 
and  progressive  ?  Why  should  you  be  staggered,  if,  in 
a  book  which  professes  to  record  the  history  of  men  who 
received  a  Divine  revelation  under  such  circumstances, 
you  should  find  it  still  impregnated  with  many  of  the  old 
underlying  elements  of  evil?  Unless  moral  rectitude 
had  been  perfected  in  such  persons  by  irresistible  com- 
pulsion, how,  in  the  name  of  common  sense,  could  you 
expect  to  find  them  rising  up  erect  into  a  sudden  and 
fully  developed  state  of  holiness,  untouched  by  sin,  and 
unaffected  by  their  lack  of  pure  civilization  ?  You  have, 
therefore,  no  right  to  find  fault  with  the  morality  of  the 
Old  Testament  on  account  of  the  occasional  crimes  or 
imperfect  rectitude  of  some  of  its  chief  heroes.  You 
have  no  reason  to  be  surprised,  for  example,  that 
Noah  and  Lot  should  have  become  intoxicated ;  that 
Jacob  should  have  lied,  or  cheated  his  brother  Esau ; 
that  Moses  should  have  committed  manslaughter;  that 
Jael  should  have  violated  hospitality  by  an  act  of 
treacherous  murder ;  that  some  of  the  judges,  otherwise 
remarkable  for  the  heroism  of  faith,  should  yet  have  been 
men  of  occasionally  uncontrollable  passion;  and  that 
even  David,  while  in  the  main  a  man  of  honour,  after 
God's  own  heart,  should  have  nevertheless  been  tainted 
by  corruption,  and  tempted  to  adultery.  If  revelation 
raised  these  Scripture  heroes  in  many  particulars  above 
their  natural  level,  it  is  no  proof  of  its  falsehood  that  it 
did  not  raise  them  up  equally  in  all  other  particulars.  It 
must  be  remembered,  too,  that  the  sins  just  mentioned 
are  simply  chronicled  as  matters  of  fact  in  the  pages  of 
a  book  which  contain  Divine  revelation,  and  are  no 
part  of  the  revelation  itself.  Indeed,  considered  as  a 
history   of  the  past,  it  is  one  great  merit  of  the   Old 


156  The  Moral  Teaching  of  the 

Testament  that  it  furnishes  us  with  a  gallery  of  characters 
for  instruction,  which  are  often  as  much  intended  for  our 
warning  as  for  our  instruction;  that  it  does  not  bring 
before  us  mere  ideal  figures  which  never  existed,  like 
the  beatified  ghosts  of  many  modern  biographies,  but 
living  men  and  women,  with  all  the  blots  and  blurs  of  a 
fallen  manhood,  just  as  they  still  cling  to  them,  even 
under  the  most  favoured  circumstances.  You  must  also 
bear  in  mind,  gentlemen,  that,  according  to  your  own 
creed,  everything,  both  in  physical  nature  and  in  moral 
progress,  was  being  slowly  evolved  under  a  law  of 
successive  developments.  We  ask  you,  therefore,  to  be 
consistent  with  your  own  position ;  and  to  admit  that, 
even  though  a  revelation  came  in  for  the  purpose  of 
aiding  that  development  of  moral  progress,  it  must  never- 
theless have  necessarily  been  hindered  in  its  purifying 
effects  by  the  general  depravity  of  those  primeval  times. 
Under  which  circumstances  we  contend  that  your  satire 
upon  the  imperfect  morality  of  many  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment characters  is  neither  consistent  with  your  own 
theory,  nor  is  it  philosophical,  or  just,  or  wise. 

6.  If  you  could  prove  to  us  out  of  Scripture  that  God  is 
represented  as  approving  of  these  outbreaks  of  sin  in  His 
servants,  we  would  allow  you  to  triumph ;  we  would 
acknowledge  the  justice  of  your  allegations.  But  did 
He  ?  Where  is  it  said  that  God  approved  of  Noah's 
drunkenness,  or  of  Lot's  incest,  or  of  Jacob's  polygamy  ? 
The  most  you  can  say  is,  that  God  is  not  represented 
as  having  made  any  coercive  interference  to  prevent 
them.  But  this  only  proves  that  the  moral  elevation 
of  society,  in  an  age  so  unenlightened  and  uncultivated, 
was  one  of  such  extreme  difficulty  as  to  need  the  greatest 
toleration  and  long:uffering.     The  fact  is,  that  Scripture 


Old  Testament   Vindicated,  157 

represents  the  moral  government  of  God,  at  this  period, 
as  the  working  out  of  the  problem  already  stated : — 
"How  shall  a  Deity,  whose  being  is  infinitely  holy, 
elevate  a  race  of  men  who  are  living  in  an  age  of  semi- 
barbarism  and  of  corruption  ?  "  How  was  He  to  do  it, 
without  adopting  one  of  two  courses? — either  forcing 
them  irresistibly  to  do  what  was  right,  having  no  re, 
spect  to  their  personal  sense  of  responsibility;  or  else 
pa  tiently  allowing  time  for  the  gradual  evolution  of  their 
higher  moral  life,  through  periods  of  permitted  imperfec- 
tion ?  The  first  of  these  courses,  as  I  have  already 
remarked,  would  have  been  no  more  a  bofici  fide  subju- 
gation of  moral  evil,  than  the  caging  of  wild  beasts  in  our 
zoological  gardens,  or  the  handcuffing  of  maniacs  in  our 
workhouses,  would  be  the  genuine  elevation  of  soul- 
debased  natures.  Hence,  the  action  of  Divine  revelation 
on  man  must  be  sought  for  in  the  second  course.  And 
that  is  why  evils  of  a  social  character,  which  are  now 
universally  reprobated,  were,  in  those  early  times,  per- 
mitted with  a  long-sufiering  tolerance  which  is  not 
granted  at  present,  since  the  world  has  grown  up  into  a 
higher  and  purer  civilization. 

Take  polygamy  and  slavery,  for  example,  both  of  which 
found  temporary  provisions  of  a  remedial  character  in  the 
law  of  Moses,  in  order  to  soften  their  evil  tendencies,  and 
minimise,  as  far  as  possible,  their  corrupting  influences 
upon  society.  Remember,  you  are  not  to  tell  me  that 
God  was  responsible  for  these  uncivilized  institutions, 
because,  in  an  age  of  uncivilization,  He  patiently  bore 
with  such  evil  manners,  and,  instead  of  sweeping  them 
away  at  once,  enacted  remedial  laws  which  gradually 
prepared  the  way,  by  moral  rather  than  coercive  means, 
for  their  final  and  perpetual  extinction.     The  Scriptures 


158  The  Moral  Teaching  of  the 

might  have  represented  Him  as  meeting  these  existing 
evils  by  arbitrarily  enforcing  upon  His  church  the 
highest  social  morality  all  at  once.  But  if  so,  it  would 
have  been  against  all  the  analogies  of  nature  and  provi- 
dence, in  which  we  see  slow  evolutions  and  progressive 
development  to  be  one  of  God's  invariable  and  established 
laws.  That  He  should  be  represented,  therefore,  here 
as  following  the  same  order,  meeting  social  evils  as  they 
existed,  and  making  the  revelation  He  gave  to  man,  not, 
in  the  first  place,  a  means  of  their  sudden  and  complete 
expulsion,  but  of  their  gradual  and  progressive  purifi- 
cation ;  this,  so  far  from  being  an  argument  against  the 
Old  Testament,  ought  to  be  distinctly  one  in  its  favour, 
inasmuch  as  it  harmonises  with  all  the  other  methods  of 
the  world's  administration. 

7.  And  here,  gentlemen,  let  me  call  your  attention  to 
the  fact  that  your  attacks  against  Divine  revelation  are 
singularly  shifting  and  double-sided.  For  while,  on  the 
one  hand,  you  thus  accuse  it  of  imperfection  because  it 
represents  God  as  being  too  tolerant  and  long-sufi'ering 
tow^ard  evil,  you  turn  round  and  attack  it  still  more 
violently  because  it  represents  God  as  being,  in  other 
particulars,  far  too  severe  and  relentless  against  evil. 
You  point,  for  example,  to  His  destruction  of  the  Canaan- 
ites  and  the  Amalekites  as  specimens  of  His  providential 
judgments,  which  were  unjustly  tyrannical  and  cruel,  and 
utterly  inconsistent  with  a  moral  governor  whose  nature 
is  that  of  love  and  goodness.  Thus  it  would  appear  that 
nothing  suits  you.  One  moment  you  tell  us  that  our 
God  was  over-gentle,  and  even  time-serving,  because  He 
did  not  sweep  away  polygamy  and  slaver)-  at  a  blow  ;  at 
another  moment  you  accuse  Him  of  cruelty  and  injustice 
because  He  cut  ofif  wicked  nations,  which  were  on  the 


Old  Testament  Vindicated.  159 

point  of  corrupting  His  church  through  sins  far  deeper 
and  more  hateful.  But  "wisdom  is  justified  of  her  chil- 
dren." There  is  no  real  discrepancy  between  these  two 
apparently  opposite  courses  of  God's  government.  They 
are  alike  founded  upon  grand  ulterior  purposes  of  love 
and  goodness  to  man ;  purposes  which,  though  not  trans- 
parent on  the  surface,  are  yet  plainly  discernible  upon  calm 
and  close  inspection. 

No  one  can  possibly  shrink  more  than  I  do  from  those 
Divine  injunctions  which  the  Old  Testament  records  con- 
cerning the  massacre  of  whole  cities  and  peoples ;  for  I 
hope  I  have  a  heart,  gentlemen,  which  is  quite  as  far 
removed  from  all  sympathy  with  savage  and  brutal  blood- 
shed as  any  of  your  own.  I  stand  in  imagination,  indeed, 
amidst  those  scenes  of  terrific  slaughter,  and  as  I  listen  to 
the  shrieks  of  helpless  women  and  children,  mercilessly 
sabred  or  speared,  I  lift  up  my  eyes  to  heaven,  and  ex- 
claim, "Can  this  be  Thy  work,  O  merciful  Father? 
Surely,  oh,  surely,  these  murderers  have  mistaken  their 
self-barbarity  for  a  Divine  commission.  Only  in  their 
own  envenomed  passions  can  they  hear  that  voice,  which 
they  pretend  or  think  comes  from  Thee  ! "  I  suppose 
such  are  the  first  instincts  of  every  feeling  heart  in  this 
day  of  19th  century  civilisation. 

But  need  I  remind  you  that  it  is  also  part  of  our  19th 
century  civilization  to  be  the  disciples  of  reason  as  much 
as  of  feeling;  and  that  each  of  these  ought  to  have  its 
legitimate  sphere  in  our  estimate  of  the  interests  of 
humanity?  Need  I  tell  a  reflecting  and  thoughtful 
audience  like  the  present,  that,  upon  the  assumption  of 
there  being  a  God  who  is  the  Supreme  Governor  of  the 
world,  reason  should  carefully  discriminate  between  His 
moral  right  to  annihilate  nations  which  are  incurably  cor- 


i6o  The  Moral  Teaching  of  the 

rupt,  and  His  moral  right  to  make  their  fellow- creatures 
the  executioners  of  that  destruction  ?  The  two  questions 
are  perfectly  distinct.  First,  then,  let  me  ask  whether  the 
Old  Testament  ought  to  be  rejected  as  a  true  revelation, 
because  it  assumes  the  moral  right  of  Deity  to  annihilate 
nations  which  are  incurably  corrupt  ? 

This  was  exactly  the  case  before  us.  These  nations, 
according  to  the  statements  of  Scripture,  were  hopelessly 
corrupt.  They  were  spared  for  centuries,  through  Divine 
long-suffering,  because  "  their  iniquity  was  not  yet  full." 
(Gen.  XV.  i6.)  The  question  therefore  arose,  whether, 
when  thus  hopelessly  incurable,  they  should  be  still 
spared,  seeing  that  with  this  prolongation  of  mercy  they 
would  soon  corrupt  all  oth  rs  less  degenerate  than  them- 
selves, until  the  earth  became,  as  it  had  become  previously 
before  the  flood,  one  seething  mass  of  moral  impurity, 
threatening  the  final  and  complete  extinction  of  all  good- 
ness. Here  I  ask  again,  as  I  did  before.  Are  all  the 
resources  of  love  and  mercy  to  be  spent  upon  the  aban- 
doned, and  none  to  be  exhibited  for  the  protection  of 
the  more  virtuous  ?  Do  not  judgments  of  the  severest 
nature  against  the  former,  often  practically  prove  conser- 
vative of  benevolence  and  kindness  towards  the  latter  ? 
Is  not  this  reasoning  the  very  basis  of  all  just  moral 
government  in  our  most  civilized  communities  at  present? 
The  great  difference  between  the  two  cases  is,  that  in  our 
own  sphere  of  government  we  apply  the  principles  only 
to  individuals  ;  whereas  in  this  the  larger  sphere  of  Divine 
government  the  principle  is  applied  to  nations.  But  in 
either  case  the  principle  is  the  same. 

Perhaps  you  say,  "  No ;  there  is  this  great  difference 
of  principle;  that  we,  in  the  case  of  individuals,  dis- 
criminate between  the  old  and  young,  between  the  more 


Old  Testament  Vindicated.  i6i 

hardened  and  more  innocent ;  whereas  God,  in  the  case 
of  these  nations,  made  no  discrimination,  but  involved 
all  persons,  without  exception,  in  one  wholesale  slaughter. 
Was  that  consistent  wdth  mercy  or  justice  ?     The  reply- 
to  this  question  is  entirely  dependent  upon  the  degree  of 
moral  abandonment  into  which  these  nations  had  fallen. 
The  question  is,  was  the  case  such  that  the  children  of 
these   criminals,  if  spared,  would  certainly  have  grown 
up,  like  their  parents,  perpetuating  the  same  contagion  ? 
Is  it  not  a  fact  that  bad  qualities  are  transmitted  from 
father  to  son,  and  intensified  after  several  stages  of  trans- 
mission ;  so  that  where  parents  have  proved  ineradicably 
evil,   there,  by  the  simple  law  of  inheritance,   the  evil 
not  only  remains,  but  grows  worse  and  worse  ?     And  is  it 
not  a  law  of  the  world  (account  for  it  how  you  will),  that 
some  degraded  races  are  destined  to  extinction,  as  the 
only  means  of  getting  rid  of  the  curse  which  they  inflict 
upon  society  ?      I  therefore  argue,   that,  just  as  in  the 
destruction  of  a  wild  beast's  lair,  the  young  leopards  or 
panthers  naturally   and   inevitably   fall   with   the   older 
brutes,  so,  in  the  inexorable  necessities  of  this  dreadful 
case,  the  children  and  their  parents  required  the  same 
treatment.     You  will  remind  me,  perhaps,  of  the  possible 
amelioration   and   improvement   of    this   younger    race 
under  the  process  of  education.     Yes,  gentlemen ;  but 
that  is  an  element  of  modem  civilisation  which,  in  this 
period  of  the  world's  history,  had  not  been  developed. 
All  such  gentler  and  more  noble  methods  of  the  moral 
government   of  the   world,    of  course,   formed   part   of 
God's  ulterior  designs;  but  these  were  then  as  neces- 
sarily reserved  for  the    future  as   the   genial    warmth 
of  summer  is  ever  kept  behind  during  the  snows  and 
blasts  of  winter.     If,  therefore,  the  annihilation  of  these 

II 


1 62  The  Moral  Teaching  of  the 

refuse  nations  was  at  all  consistent  with  the  essential 
principles  of  Divine  love  and  mercy  to  others,  it  follows 
that  the  inclusion  of  the  young  with  the  old  cannot 
fairly  be  objected  to,  when  taken  in  connection  with  the 
low  and  imperfect  development  of  the  moral  training  of 
a  corrupted  world. 

And  this  brings  me  to  the  next  question — Must  the 
Old  Testament  be  rejected  as  a  true  revelation,  because 
it  represents  God's  destruction  of  these  nations  as  or- 
dained through  human  executioners  ? 

The  real  answer  to  this  query  lies  in  the  uncivilised 
character  of  those  times;  in  the  fact  that  no  nation 
then  upon  the  earth  had  any  natural  reverence  for  the 
sanctity  of  human  life  taken  in  war;  so  that  those 
massacres,  which  to  our  refined  sense  of  feeling  are 
deeply  revolting,  were  in  those  days  among  the  necessary 
accompaniments  of  conquest.  It  was  a  period  of 
horrible  barbaric  cruelty,  when  captives  taken  in  war 
were  generally  slaughtered.  Not  only  in  those  remote 
ages,  but  even  long  after  the  introduction  of  a  much 
higher  civilisation,  the  same  barbarities  in  war  have  been 
frequently  chronicled  in  secular  history,  and  of  which 
many  instances  might  be  given  if  the  case  required  it. 
In  employing  this  method  of  national  judgment,  there- 
fore, although  there  was  no  elevation  by  God  of  the 
moral  sense  of  Israel,  yet  there  was  no  actual  deterio- 
ration of  it.  Revelation  in  this  respect  did  nothing,  it 
must  be  freely  granted,  towards  the  world's  social 
amelioration  or  moral  advancement ;  it  simply  used  the 
debased  practices  of  war  as  it  found  them,  leaving  its 
own  ulterior  purposes  of  reformation  in  the  background. 
It  worked  through  the  existing  evils  of  an  uncivilised 
age,  in  order  to  clear  the  ground  for  future  action  by 


Old  Testament  Vindicated,  163 

which  society  might,  upon  the  whole,  be  more  quickly- 
raised  to  a  purer  and  higher  level.  In  the  light  of  sub- 
sequent and  grander  revelations,  no  one  can  justify  this 
kind  of  agency  as  good.  More  correctly  speaking,  it 
was  the  employment  of  a  popular  evil  for  the  suppres- 
sion of  evils  still  greater.  Considered  in  strict  propriety, 
and  under  our  present  high  civilisation,  war,  under  any 
circumstances,  is  an  evil.  Yet,  as  a  means  of  eliminating 
greater  evils,  and  as  links  in  that  great  chain  of  events  by 
which  the  moral  government  of  God  is  conducting  man- 
kind, through  successive  steps  of  discipline,  to  a  future 
period  of  renovation,  I  can  see  nothing  which  makes 
it  unreasonable  that  ultimate  good  should  have  been 
worked  out  through  processes  of  this  terrible  nature, 
without  any  impeachment  of  God's  holiness.  The  more 
so  because  all  these  cases,  in  which  man  was  appointed 
to  be  the  executive  of  God's  magistracy,  were  accom- 
panied by  other  ordinary  laws  of  duty,  which  counter- 
balanced their  tendency  toward  ferociousness,  and 
which  really  marked  a  very  great  advance  in  the  moral 
education  of  the  world.  Consider  only  for  a  moment  or 
two  the  inspired  humanity  with  which  the  law  of  Moses 
gradually  indoctrinated  Israel  in  other  respects,  and 
which  afterwards  found  expression  even  in  war  time;  as 
when  Elisha  rebuked  the  king  of  Israel,  saying, 
"  Wouldest  thou  smite  those  whom  thou  hast  taken 
captive  with  thy  sword  and  bow  ?  Set  bread  and  water 
before  them,  that  they  may  eat "  (2  Kings  vi.  22). 
Consider,  too,  the  ameliorated  conditions  under  which 
the  common  practice  of  slavery  was  regulated.  For 
example,  the  servitude  of  Hebrew  men  and  women  was 
compulsorily  terminable  at  the  end  of  six  years,  and 
possibly  sooner,  if  the  year  of  Jubilee  intervened,  when 


164  The  Moral  Teaching  of  the 

there  was  a  general  release  (see  Ex.  xxi.  2,  Lev.  xxv.  40); 
and  not  only  so,  but  it  was  forbidden  to  be  used  with 
any  severity,  ''  Thou  shall  not  rule  over  him  with  rigour, 
but  shalt  fear  thy  God"  (Lev.  xxv.  43).  Even  with 
regard  to  foreign  slaves,  the  Hebrews  were  also  educated 
into  a  spirit  of  far  greater  tolerance  and  humanity  than 
the  world  at  that  time  understood ;  for  if  a  master  ill-used 
one  of  them,  even  to  the  blinding  of  an  eye  or  the 
knocking  out  a  tooth,  it  was  a  law  that  the  slave  might 
instantly  claim  his  freedom  (Ex.  xxi.  26,  27).  Were 
you  aware  of  that,  gentlemen  ?  Whereas  if  the  slave 
died,  his  blood  was  to  be  avenged  on  the  master  (Ex. 
xxi.  20).*  Who  can  read  of  these  things  without  noting 
the  gradual  elevation  wjjich  it  fostered  ? 

Read  again  those  injunctions  in  Exodus,  which  taught 
the  sacredness  of  personal  property,  t  pity  for  the  helpless,  J 
kindness  to  enemies ;  §  again,  those  precepts  m  Leviti- 
cus, which  taught  reverence  for  parents,  ||  kindness  to 
the  deaf  and  blind,  T"  the  sin  both  of  secret  malice  and 
of  wilful  vengeance ;  **  reverence  for  the  aged,  and  +t 
hospitality  to  strangers ;  \  %  and,  once  more,  those  pre- 
cepts in  Deuteronomy,  which  taught  Israel  that  their 
property  should  be  placed  at  the  disposal  of  poor 
travellers  and  neighbours,  §  §  and  that  they  should 
observe  the  strictest  impartiality  and  justice  in  the  judg- 
ment of  criminals.  1|  || 

In  this  way,  gentlemen,  (if  you  will  only  take  a  calm 

*  Slaves  might  also,  if  well  conducted,  share  the  inheritance  of 
the  family  (Pro v.  xvii.  2).  and  even  marry  into  the  family  (i  Chron. 

ii.  35)- 

t  Ex.  xxii.  I  —15.  IF  Lev.  xix.  14.  ,§§  Deut.  xxiii.  24,  25; 

J  Ex.  xxii.  21 — 27.  **  Lev.  xix.  17,  18.  xv.  7 — ii. 

§  Ex.  xxiii.  4 — 6.  *H"  Lev.  xix.  32.  ||||  Deut.  xxv.  I — 3. 

y  Lev.  xix.  3.  %X  Lev.  xix.  33,  34. 


Old  Testament  Vindicated.  165 

and  dispassionate  view  of  the  subject.)  you  may  see  that, 
while  revelation  represents  God  as  employing  the  barbaric 
custom  of  war  then  in  vogue  among  men,  for  the  purpose 
of  destroying  certain  incorrigibly  corrupt  and  corrupting 
nations,  which  were  lying  in  and  about  Canaan  like 
festering  ulcers,  and  which  were  threatening  to  eat  out  the 
moral  life  of  a  people  who  had  received  a  deposit  of 
supernatural  truth  for  the  gradual  regeneration  of  the 
whole  world  \  it  yet  consistently  carried  out  this  design 
by  exhibiting,  from  the  very  first,  certain  principles  and 
precepts  of  moral  action,  which,  like  germs  of  a  higher 
civilization,  were  to  be  developed  slowly  and  gradually 
until  they  should  at  last  find  their  full  expansion  in  the 
1 9th  century  of  our  own  era. 

Such  is  a  brief  outline  of  the  thoughts  which  satisfy  my 
own  reason  upon  this  difficult  subject,  and  which  possibly 
may  modify  even  if  they  do  not  satisfy  yours. 

8.  Let  us  now  pass  to  two  or  three  other  points.  There 
stands,  for  instance,  in  immediate  connection  with  this, 
the  curse  of  Noah  upon  Ham,  the  father  of  Canaan,  (for  so 
the  Septuagint  reads  it,)  on  account  of  his  indecent  treat- 
ment of  Noah  during  his  helpless  state  of  drunkenness ; 
upon  which  Lord  BoUngbroke  says,  "This  curse  contradicts 
all  our  notions  of  order  and  justice.  One  is  tempted  to 
think  that  the  patriarch  was  still  drunk,  and  that  no  man 
in  his  senses  could  hold  such  language,  or  pass  such  a 
sentence."  But  allow  me  to  observe  that  the  justice  or 
injustice  of  Noah,  in  thus  condemning  a  whole  posterity 
for  the  offence  of  one  or  two  progenitors,  is  not  the  real 
point  at  issue.  Suppose,  for  argument's  sake,  we  admit 
that  the  patriarch  was  personally  vindictive  in  his  anger. 
Revelation  merely  records  the  fact,  without  the  least 
record  of  a  justification  of  it.     The  only  difficulty  consists 


1 66  The  Moral  Teaching  of  the 

in  this ;  that,  whereas  Noah  would  then  have  uttered 
an  intemperate  and  unjust  sentence,  it  nevertheless 
should  have  proved  true ;  implying  that  God  confirmed  the 
wish,  and  acted  upon  it.  Yet  why  should  that  conclusion 
be  drawn?  Is  not  this  making  a  perfectly  gratuitous 
difficulty  for  the  sake  of  attacking  Scripture  ?  For  what 
evidence  have  we  to  prove  that  exactly  the  same  course  of 
events  in  the  future  history  of  the  great  Hamitic  family 
would  not  have  taken  place,  even  if  Noah  had  never 
uttered  this  curse?  None  !  The  only  remarkable  feature 
in  the  case  is,  that  what  Noah  may  have  uttered  with  in- 
temperate and  unjust  violence,  should  have  thus,  uncon- 
sciously to  himself,  been  an  actual  portrait  of  the  pending 
and  unfulfilled  future.  To  say,  however,  that  the  curse 
thus  uttered  mysteriously  fitted  into  the  truth  of  coming 
events,  is  one  thing;  to  affirm  that  the  shaping  of 
those  events  was  caused  by  the  curse,  is  quite  another 
thing.  In  the  latter  case  revelation  might,  perhaps,  be  im- 
peached ;  in  the  former  there  can  be  no  impeachment ; 
it  is  only  an  illustration  of  the  marvellous  manner  in  which 
God  can  exhibit  by  things,  evil  in  themselves,  deep  truths, 
which  are,  nevertheless,  as  cause  and  sequence,  quite  un- 
connected with  one  another. 

9.  "  Well,"  you  say,  "  but  what  about  Abraham  being 
tempted  of  God  to  immolate  his  son  Isaac  for  a  burnt 
offering  ?  How  can  you  believe  in  a  revelation  which 
presents  you  with  a  God  so  cruel  and  bloodthirsty  as  that?" 
This  would  indeed  be  a  formidable  difficulty  if  we  were 
really  obliged  to  regard  God  as  intending  the  immolation 
of  Isaac;  or  even  if  we  were  obliged  to  believe  that 
Abraham  set  about  the  work  as  meaning  to  offer  a  pro- 
pitiatory sacrifice.  But  so  far  from  this  being  the  case, 
the  whole   narrative,   carefully  considered,   shows  that 


Old  Testament  Vindicated.  167 

neither  of  the  views  can  be  true.  For  on  God's  side  it  is 
certain  that  the  sacrifice  was  not  meant  to  be  actually- 
offered  ;  otherwise,  it  would  not  afterwards  have  been 
forbidden.  This  fact  alone  proves,  as  plainly  as  it  is 
possible,  that  the  command  was  nothing  but  a  temporary- 
discipline  of  Abraham's  faith  and  obedience,  with  a  view 
to  test  his  intuitive  perception  of  the  Divine  mind,  and  to 
bring  out  the  strength  of  his  character.  On  Abraham's 
side,  the  case  is  fully  as  clear.  For  previously  to  this 
strange  command  it  had  been  distinctly  said,  "  In  Isaac 
shall  thy  seed  be  called"  (Gen.  xxi.  12).  Abraham, 
therefore,  who  fully  believed  that  promise,  was  not  at  all 
solicitous  about  the  issue  of  the  command.  In  fact,  he 
penetrated  the  Divine  motive,  and  realized  the  secret 
object  of  his  trial.  Isaac  could  not  have  been  meant  to 
be  a  real  burnt  offering,  otherwise  the  word  of  promise 
would  have  failed — "  In  Isaac  shall  thy  seed  be  called." 
Hence  Abraham  went  to  Mount  Moriah  in  the  full  assur- 
ance of  faith,  either  that  the  death  of  his  son  would  be 
countermanded,  as  soon  as  he  showed  himself  willing  to 
stand  the  test ;  or  else  that,  if  it  were  momentarily  per- 
mitted, his  son  would  afterwards  be  restored  to  life 
(comp.  Heb.  xi.  19).  In  this  way  the  patriarch's  intuitive 
perception  of  Divine  truth  rendered  the  act  free  from 
criminality;  and  Scripture,  when  properly  interpreted, 
lends  no  sanction  to  the  idea,  that,  in  setting  about  the 
work  as  he  did,  he  had  the  least  notion  of  offering  up 
Isaac  as  a  propitiatory  sacrifice  for  sin.  The  truth  is,  that 
however  much  it  may  strike  you  in  the  light  of  one  of 
those  human  immolations  which  the  surrounding  heathen 
practised,  it  was  not  only  no  such  thing,  either  on  God's 
part  or  on  Abraham's,  but  only  a  test  on  one  side,  and  an 
exhibition  on  the  other,  of  a  splendid  and  triumphant 


1 68  The  Moral  Teaching  of  the 

faith.  I  submit  that  this  is  an  unanswerable  reply,  and  I 
challenge  you  to  give  me  a  rejoinder. 

lo.  You  remind  me  there  are  other  points  remaining. 
Of  course  there  are  ;  and  more  than  I  shall  have  time  to 
deal  with.  If  I  cannot  take  them  up,  therefore,  sepa- 
rately, let  me  supply  you  with  at  least  one  or  two 
canons  of  criticism  under  which  they  may  severally  be 
resolved.    I  would  say, — 

( I.)  "  Do  not  expect  that  every  sentiment  in  a  book  writ- 
ten by  inspiration  7nust  necessarily  itself  be  inspired.'^ 

I  suppose  no  thoughtful  person  can  have  carefully 
read  his  Bible  without  occasionally  finding  places  in 
which  he  has  been  constrained  to  say,  "Surely  this 
sentiment,  though  recorded  under  Divine  inspiration, 
was  not  itself  inspired."  Gentlemen,  nothing  is  ever 
gained  by  refusing  to  look  at  difficulties  fearlessly  and 
honestly.  It  would  be  of  no  use  for  us  to  come  here  and 
skim  them  over  as  if  we  were  ignorant  of  their  force,  or 
afraid  to  meet  them  in  argument.  My  mission  would 
be  vain  to-night,  if  I  were  to  allow  any  of  you  to  go 
away  saying,  "  He  did  not  fairly  put  himself  in  our 
place,"  or,  "  He  avoided  the  points  which  he  did  not 
know  how  to  answer." 

Time  presses,  however.  Hence  I  only  offer  you  this 
cautionary  criticism  as  a  key  for  the  explanation  of  certain 
difficulties  which  you  can  use  at  your  own  leisure.  I  say 
there  are  sentiments  recorded  in  Scripture  by  Divine  inspi- 
ration, which  were  not  themselves  inspired  at  the  time 
of  their  original  utterance.  Take,  for  example,  the  sayings 
of  the  three  friends  of  Job ;  concerning  whom  God  de- 
clared by  express  revelation  that  "  they  had  not  spoken 
the  thing  which  was  right "  (Job  xlii.  7).  Now,  from  this 
declaration  there  is  an  obvious  denial  both  of  the  inspiration 


Old  Testament   Vindicated.  169 

and  infallibility  of  at  least  some  portions  of  those  nine 
chapters  of  Job  which  contain  their  speeches.  Not  that, 
in  writing  out  and  recording  those  speeches,  we  think 
the  sacred  penman  himself  was  uninspired ;  for  we  believe 
that  it  was  sometimes  as  much  a  part  of  inspiration  to 
record  errors  as  to  preserve  truth.  It  is  under  this  canon  of 
interpretation  that  we  class  the  song  of  Deborah,  in  which 
she  glorifies  treachery  and  assassination ;  yet  the  glorifi- 
cation of  a  treacherous  lie  could  be  no  part  of  inspired 
truth ;  inasmuch  as  "it  is  impossible  for  God  to  lie " 
(Heb.  vi.  18),  and  "He  cannot  deny  Himself"  (2  Tim. 
ii.  13).  Still  that  furnishes  no  evidence  against  the  in- 
spiration of  the  book  from  which  it  is  taken.  For  though 
Deborah  was  not  inspired  when  speaking,  yet  the 
sacred  writer  may  none  the  less  have  been  inspired  to 
chronicle  her  utterance.  In  other  words,  the  book  con- 
taining a  revelation  cannot  be  impeached  because  it  re- 
cords sayings  which,  though  historically  correct,  are  not  so 
morally.  As  another  illustration,  take  the  complaint  of 
Jeremiah  when  he  cursed  the  day  of  his  birth.  "Cursed 
be  the  day  wherein  I  was  born"  (Jer.  xx.  14).  Even 
the  most  reverent  believer  has  a  right  to  pause  at  this 
place,  and  say,  "  Could  the  prophet  have  been  inspired 
in  thus  murmuring  ?  Was  it  not  rebellious  discontent 
against  his  heavenly  Father?"  Note  the  logical  dis- 
tinction, however,  which  exists  between  the  fact  that 
Jeremiah  uttered  this  sentiment  out  of  his  own  wicked 
heart,  and  the  fact  that  he  was  inspired  to  embody  it  after- 
wards in  the  midst  of  true  revelations  from  God.  We 
say  we  beUeve  it  to  be  often  the  part  of  Divine  inspiration 
to  record  error  as  well  as  truth  ;  chronicling  error  as 
something  uttered,  not  because  the  Spirit  of  God  ap- 
proved of  it,  but  because  it  was  a  commentary  upon 
human  weakness  and  ignorance. 


170  The  Moral  Teaching  of  the 

I  believe  this  canon  of  criticism  is  perfectly  sound, 
gentlemen,  and  that  it  will  help  you,  if  you  wish  to  be 
helped,  over  many  apparent  difficulties. 

II.  Now  take  another.  (2.)  "Z>^  not  expect  to  find 
every  action  of  inspired  men  in  the  Bible  necessarily  performed 
under  the  guidance  of  God ;  for  at  the  moment  of  that  par- 
ticular act  the  Divine  inspiratiofi  may  not  have  been  upon 
himr 

For  example,  take  the  case  of  David's  feigning  him- 
self mad  in  Gath,  where  he  behaved  himself  in  the  most 
deceitful  and  disgraceful  manner  (i  Sam.  xxi.  13).  No 
one  supposes  that  because  the  inspired  historian  relates 
this,  that  David  was  therefore  under  an  inspiration  to 
do  it.  On  the  contrary,  we  see  at  a  glance  that  it  was 
opposed  to  God's  moral  law,  and  a  mark  of  unbelief  in 
God's  providence.  Hence  we  immediately  distin- 
guish between  its  uninspired  origin  and  the  inspired 
narrative  which  records  it. 

In  the  same  way,  when  we  find  Samson  cohabiting 
with  the  Philistine  Delilah,  or  Jephthah  sacrificing  his 
daughter  in  obedience  to  a  rash  vow,  the  book  which 
records  these  acts  may  be  written  by  inspiration,  albeit 
these  men  were  under  no  inspiration  at  the  time  of  their 
committing  those  unworthy  deeds.  This  canon  of  criticism 
will  clear  away  many  difficulties.  Amongst  others  it  will 
remove  that  horrible  stumbling-block  over  which  you  so 
often  make  merry ;  I  mean  the  treatment  of  the  Midian- 
itish  people  by  Moses,  when  he  slew  all  save  the  virgins, 
whom  he  permitted  the  Israelites  to  keep  for  their  own 
depraved  purposes.  As  far  as  I  understand  this  conduct, 
gentlemen,  I  see  no  evidence  in  the  account  to  show 
that  Moses  was  here  acting  under  any  Divine  order. 
The  fact  is  recorded  as  history ;  and  Moses  was  inspired 


Old  Testament  Vindicated.  171 

to  record  it  \  but  it  does  not  follow  that  he  was  also 
inspired  to  give  that  order. 

1 2.  And  now  let  me  briefly  note  a  third  and  final  canon. 
You  may  not  admit  it,  or  if  you  admit  it  you  may  laugh 
at  it,  but  as  a  matter  of  Biblical  critism,  and  of  Hebrew 
composition  it  is  simply  indisputable  : — viz.,  ''^Thatyew- 
ish  writers  were  frequently  in  the  habit  of  attributing  to 
God  Himself  the  evils  which  He  permitted  in  His  Provi- 
dence." 

Let  me  first  give  you  one  undoubted  illustration. 
"Shall  there  be  evil  in  a  city,  and  I  have  not  done  it? 
saith  the  Lord "  (Amos  iii.  6).  The  morality  of  the 
Old  Testament  might  indeed  be  truly  impeached,  if  this 
were  intended  to  teach  that  God  was  the  actual  author  of 
evil.  Indeed,  the  notion  is  so  preposterous,  that  nothing 
but  the  glaring  impossibility  of  such  an  idea  could  have  per- 
mitted this  Jewish  method  of  phraseology  to  approximate 
so  apparently  close  to  it. 

Falling,  however,  as  it  did,  within  this  well-known  line 
of  Hebrew  style  of  composition — viz.,  that  what  God  was 
known  to  have  permitted  without  any  arbitrary  inter- 
vention of  providence.  He  was  often  said  to  have  done — 
that  statement  of  the  prophet  Amos  was  liable  to  no 
misconception.  We  ourselves,  in  these  western  countries, 
may  pronounce  such  a  method  of  speech  both  awkward 
and  loose ;  but  in  eastern  lands,  our  own  more  precise 
and  formal  habits  of  expression  are  not  by  any  means  the 
law.  You  are  not,  therefore,  to  deny  this  Jewish  style 
of  writing,  because  it  does  not  square  with  your  own  laws 
of  thought.  You  must  accept  it  as  a  peculiarity  of  the 
country  to  which  it  belongs,  and  of  the  nation  in  which 
it  was  followed,  where  verbal  criticisms,  like  those  in 
vogue  among  ourselves,  were  altogether  unknown.     And 


1/2  The  Moral  Teaching  of  the 

this  being  so,  it  supplies  us  with  a  canon  of  Scripture  criti- 
cism which  at  once  takes  off  the  edge  from  several  serious 
impeachments  of  the  moral  teaching  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment Thus,  in  2  Samuel  xii.,  8,  God  is  actually  described 
as  saying  to  David,  "  I  gave  thee  thy  master's  house,  and 
thy  master's  wives  into  thy  bosom  ; "  words  which  appear 
to  make  the  Deity  responsible  for  David's  concubinage ; 
and  which,  although  unsuited  to  our  methods  and  habits 
of  speech,  were,  nevertheless,  perfectly  well  understood 
by  the  Hebrew  nation.  So  in  that  passage  where  the 
Lord  is  represented  as  sending  forth  a  "  lying  spirit  in  the 
mouths  of  the  prophets  "  (i  Kings  xxii.  23).  According  to 
the  accurate  phraseology  of  western  countries,  this  language 
seems  appalling;  but,  under  the  familiar  canon  of  criticism 
to  which  I  now  refer,  it  becomes  easy  and  unimpeachable 
The  same  is  to  be  said  of  the  corresponding  scene  in 
Job  i.  6 — 12.  In  both  these  places  we  have  merely, 
certain  conceptions  of  moral  truth  thrown  into  a  dramatic 
form,  for  the  sake  of  impressiveness,  rather  than  the 
record  of  historical  facts.  Criticised  with  literal  rigour, 
the  language  in  each  case  may  be  made  to  prove  that 
God  holds  communion  with  evil  spirits,  which  is  contrary 
to  the  whole  tenor  of  Scripture;  but,  properly  inter- 
preted, according  to  the  genius  of  Hebrew  literature^ 
they  are  free  from  any  such  impeachment. 

In  concluding  this  address,  let  me  now  very  briefly 
sum  up  the  principles  which  I  have  been  applying  to  the 
solution  of  Old  Testament  difficulties  : — 

(i.)  Omnipotence  cannot  work  contradictions. 

(2.)  The  constitution  of  moral  beings  having  a  per- 
fectly free  agency,  without  any  possibility  of  falling, 
would  be  a  contradiction. 

(3.)  The  revelation  of  God's  moral  nature  and   pur- 


Old  Testament  Vindicated.  173 

poses,  in  any  abstract  and  philosophical  language,  would 
have  been  utterly  incomprehensible  by  the  demoralised 
and  uncivilised  races  of  primitive  mankind. 

(4.)  Long-suffering  mercy  toward  the  wicked,  unlimited 
by  protection  and  preservation  of  the  righteous,  would 
be  a  violation  of  Divine  goodness. 

(5.)  The  infliction  of  pain  and  suffering  wisely  conserve 
the  purposes  of  ulterior  and  general  benevolence. 

(6.)  Obedience  to  Divine  law,  enforced  by  arbitrary 
coercion,  can  never  constitute  moral  elevation  of  charac- 
ter. 

(7.)  The  raising  of  degraded  and  uncivilised  races  to 
moral  purity  must  necessarily  be  the  result  of  slow  and 
progressive  evolution. 

(8.)  In  the  process  of  this  evolution  we  may  expect  to 
find  the  patient  endurance  of  some  evils,  accompanied 
by  remedial  measures  for  their  final  extinction. 

(9.)  We  may  also  expect  to  find  a  severe  extermination 
of  other  evils,  when  those  evils  are  otherwise  ineradicable. 

(10.)  In  the  union  of  this  patience  and  severity  the 
moral  character  of  Divine  government  is  shown  by  the 
ordination  of  a  concurrent  set  of  laws,  which  tended  to 
humanise,  civilise,  and  purify  the  heart  of  man. 

(11.)  Divine  inspiration  has  often  directed  the  record 
both  of  sentiments  and  facts  in  the  sacred  books  of 
Scripture  which  were,  in  themselves,  not  only  unin- 
spired, but  untrue  and  improper. 

(12.)  According  to  the  genius  of  Hebrew  literature, 
God  is  often  said  to  have  done  what  He  permitted  in  His 
Providence  to  be  done. 

I  have  now  finished,  gentlemen.  I  have  attempted  no 
flowers  of  rhetoric.  I  have  made  no  effort  at  fine  writing. 
My  object  has  been  to  reason  rather  than  expatiate.     I 


174    The  Moral  Teaching  of  the  Old  Testament. 

think,  too,  in  common  candour,  you  must  allow  that 
I  have  shrunk  from  no  difficulty;  and  that  I  have 
abstained  from  everything  which  would  intentionally 
wound  your  feelings.  Let  me  express  the  hope,  there- 
fore, that  in  the  discussion  which  is  to  ensue,  you 
will,  on  your  sidC;  be  equally  cautious  and  respectful. 


THE    METAPHORICAL    LANGUAGE 

APPLIED    TO 

GOD  IN  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT. 

BY  THE 

REV.    R.  B.   GIRDLESTONE,  M.A., 

AUTHOR   OF    "  THE   ANATOMY  OF   SCEPTICISM,"    "  THE   SYNONYMS   OF   THE   OLD 
TESTAMENT,"   "DIES   IRJE,"   ETC. 


The   Metaphorical  Language   applied 
to  God  in  the  Old  Testament, 


IT  is  to  be  observed  at  the  outset  that  our  subject 
does  not  give  rise  to  any  discussion  as  to  the  fact 
of  God's  existence ;  it  deals  only  with  the  peculiar  mode 
in  which  His  character  and  work  are  set  forth  in  a  col- 
lection of  Hebrew  books  which  we  call  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, and  which  are  the  common  property  of  Jews  and 
Christians.  The  writers  of  these  books  generally  pro- 
ceed on  the  hypothesis  that  God  exists,  and  that  any 
person  who  denies  this  truth  puts  himself  in  an  abnor- 
mal position,  and  abrogates  some  of  the  highest  functions 
of  his  nature.  Hence  it  is  that  we  find  no  demonstration 
of  the  being  of  God  in  the  Scripture,  but  simply  an 
account  of  certain  things  which  He  is  supposed  to  have 
said  and  done.  I  must  take  it  for  granted,  therefore,  at 
least  on  the  present  occasion,  that  there  is  a  God,  and 
that  the  Old  Testament  professes  to  be  a  statement  of 
facts  and  truths  issued  by  His  authority ;  for  it  is  from 
this  point  of  view  only  that  the  subject  before  us  can  be 
fairly  approached.  And  I  cannot  but  notice,  in  passing, 
how  fitting  and  natural  it  is,  if  there  be  a  God,  that  He 
should  take  some  means  of  making  known  to  men  His 
ways  and  His  intentions.     Strange  indeed  would  it  be  if 

I? 


178       The  Metaphorical  Language  applied  to 

century  after  century  were  to  pass  away,  and  the  silence 
of  heaven  remain  unbroken.  Strange  if  He,  who  has 
given  us  so  many  means  of  communicating  with  one 
another,  should  be  either  unable  or  unwilling  to  hold 
intercourse  with  His  creatures.  If  my  reason  and  con- 
science convince  me  that  there  is  a  God,  my  heart  pleads 
for  a  Revelation  ;  nor  does  it  plead  in  vain. 

Premising,  therefore,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  that 
the  Old  Testament  is  to  be  regarded  as  in  some  sense  a 
revelation   of   God's   truth,   we   have    to   consider   the 
metaphorical  language  used  concerning  Him  in  its  pages. 
Now,  as  a  general  principle,  it  will  be  granted  that  a 
teacher  must  adapt  himself  to  the  capa^lities  of  those 
who  are  to  be  instructed.     There  is,  however,  a  special 
difficulty  in  the  present  instance,  owing  to  the  gulf  wl;ich 
exists,  or  which  is  supposed  to  exist,  between  man  and 
God.     Let  us  try  to  estimate  the  nature  of  this  difficulty. 
I  believe  that  there  is  a  great  deal  of  truth  of  which  we 
can  have  no  clear  cognisance.     Not  only  are  we  hindered 
by  limitations  of  space  from  knowing  what  is  going  on  in 
other  worlds,  and  by  limitations  of  time,  from  knowing 
the  unrecorded  events  of  the  distant  past ;  but  also  our 
means  of  apprehending  that  which  is  near  and  which  is 
present   are   exceedingly   restricted.      The    senses    are 
the  windows  of  the  soul,  whereby  various  phases  of  the 
outer  world   command  an  approach    to    our   conscious- 
ness ;  but  they  are  surrounded  by  barriers,  which  prohibit 
the  entrance  of  all  other  external   things   except   those 
which  are  capable  of  giving  an  impression  through  these 
particular   channels.     It   may  be   that   if  other  organs, 
other  vehicles  of  perception,  other  avenues  of  conscious- 
ness, were  bestowed  upon  us,  a  great  deal  of  creation 
which  our  philosophy  barely  dreams  of  would  be  laid 


God  in  the  Old  Testament.  179 

open  before  our  astonished  minds.  It  has  been  said 
that  the  microscope  practically  furnishes  us  with  a  new- 
sense.  Certainly  it  introduces  us  to  an  aspect  of  the 
universe  with  which  we  should  be  otherwise  unacquainted, 
and  has  thus  become  the  vehicle  of  a  new  revelation. 
Yet  it  would  have  been  absolutely  useless  unless  it 
had  been  adapted  to  the  organ  of  sight,  whereby  alone 
the  wonders  unfolded  by  the  microscopic  lens  are 
brought  within  the  range  of  our  apprehension.  Now 
supposing  that  we  are  not  at  present  constructed  to 
receive  full,  clear,  and  direct  communications  from  the 
Author  of  our  being,  then  in  order  that  He  may  come 
in  contact  with  our  understandings,  He  must  needs 
adapt  Himself  to  our  existing  faculties.  If  I  wish  to 
speak  to  a  deaf  man,  I  must  accommodate  myself  to  his 
defects,  and  use  the  language  of  gesture  ;  and  if  a  blind 
man  wishes  to  read,  he  must  learn  to  read  raised  type 
with  his  fingers.  In  the  one  case  the  eye  has  to  do  the 
duty  of  the  ear ;  and  in  the  other  the  sense  of  feeling 
has  to  make  up  for  the  loss  of  the  sense  of  sight.  And 
so,  if  that  Being,  who  is  the  source  and  centre  of  all 
existence,  is  to  speak  to  man,  He  must  adopt  human 
language;  He  must  talk  as  a  man  to  his  brother;  the 
Infinite  must  unfold  Himself  in  terms  of  the  finite. 

Still  it  has  been  affirmed  that  much  of  the  language 
applied  to  God  in  the  Old  Testament  is  so  material,  not 
to  say  carnal,  as  to  be  utterly  inapplicable  to  a  spiritual 
being.  The  argument  would  probably  run  thus  : 
"  God,  if  there  be  a  God,  is  not  a  material  being ;  but 
the  Bible  represents  Him  as  if  He  were ;  therefore  the 
Biblical  account  of  Him  is  not  to  be  trusted  ; "  or  else  : 
**  God  is  in  some  parts  of  the  Bible  described  as  spiritual, 
in  others  as  material ;  but  both  cannot  be  true  ;  therefore 


i8o       The  Metaphorical  Language  applied  to 

the  Bible  is  inconsistent,  and  its  account  of  God  is  not 
trustworthy."  Certainly  there  is  some  p7'ima  facie  ground 
for  such  a  line  of  reasoning.  For  what  are  the  facts  ? 
Let  us  look  them  fairly  in  the  face.  We  find  frequently 
in  the  Old  Testament  bodily  organs,  together  with  human 
actions  and  feelings,  attributed  to  God.  He  is  said  to  see, 
to  hear,  to  smell,  to  blow ;  He  is  described  as  having  a 
terrible  voice,  a  mouth,  nostrils,  lips,  breath,  a  mighty 
hand,  an  outstretched  arm,  palms  to  his  hands,  a  back. 
He  is  said  to  have  rested  and  to  have  been  refreshed 
after  the  act  of  creation,  to  have  walked  in  the  garden, 
to  have  come  down  to  see  the  Tower  of  Babel,  to  laugh, 
and  to  awake  Hke  one  out  of  sleep.  He  is  described  as 
a  man  of  war,  and  is  said  to  have  a  sword,  a  bow  and 
arrows,  and  a  glittering  spear,  as  well  as  a  shepherd's 
rod  and  staff;  He  rides  upon  horses,  and  on  the  wings 
of  the  wdnd,  and  has  thousands  of  chariots.  We  are 
told  that  He  appeared  to  Abraham,  that  He  brought  him 
forth  from  his  tent  on  one  occasion;  that  He  went  His 
way  after  a  conversation ;  that  He  was  actually  seen  by 
the  elders  of  Israel,  and  that  He  spoke  face  to  face  with 
Moses.  Again,  He  is  said  to  have  made  coats  of  skin  for 
Adam  and  Eve,  to  have  taken  off  the  chariot- wheels 
of  the  Egyptians  in  the  Red  Sea,  and  to  have  cast  great 
stones  upon  the  enemies  of  Israel.  Once  more,  we  read 
that  He  tempted  Abraham;  that  He  sought  to  kill 
Moses ;  that  He  repented  of  having  made  man ;  that 
He  was  weary  with  repenting  (Jer.  xv.  6) ;  that  He 
hardened  the  heart  of  Pharaoh,  king  of  Egypt,  and  the 
heart  of  Sihon,  king  of  the  Amorites  ;  that  He  was 
provoked  to  wrath  ;  that  He  is  furious  (Nahum  i.  2,  3), 
and  takes  vengeance  (Ps.  xcix.  8),  and  that  He  was 
capable  of  being  actuated  by  fear  (Deut.  xxxii.  27). 


God  in  the  Old  Testament.  1 8 1 

Is  such  language  as  this  consistent  with  the  spirituality 
of  God  ?     Does  it  convey  a  faithful  representation  of  the 
Divine   Being,  and   one  which  commends   itself  to  an 
enlightened  mind  ?  Before  hastily  replying  in  the  negative, 
we   must   consider,    first,    that   the    books   of  the   Old 
Testament  are  very  ancient^  and  were  addressed  primarily 
to  a  people  whose  standard  of  mental  cultivation  was  not 
exactly   what  ours  is.      Some  accommodation    to    their 
point  of  view  was  manifestly  necessary.       Secondly,  they 
are  oriental^  and  a  highly  figurative  style  is  much  more 
common  in  the  East  than  in  the  West.     Thirdly,  many  of 
the  most  peculiar  of  the  metaphorical  expressions  above 
instanced  occur  in  the /^^//r^/ parts  of  the  Old  Testament, 
and  for  these  a  greater  latitude  of  expression  may  legiti- 
mately be  allowed.  Fourthly,  we  only  read  the  Scriptures 
in  a  translatiofi^  which,  however  excellent,  fails  sometimes 
to  convey  to  our  minds  an  idiom  which  is  natural  and 
simple  in  the  original.     Fifthly,  if  the  ways  and  doings 
of  the  Divine  Being  were  to  be  expressed  intelligibly, 
it    must  needs    be    by    the    use    of    metaphors    taken 
from  human   nature.     Our  language   relating  to  things 
unseen  and  abstract  is  generally  drawn  from  the  analogy 
of  things  visible.     Thus  the  word  "  language,"  which  I 
have  just  used,  is  derived  from  lingua^  a  tongue  ;  and  the 
word    "  derive "    signifies,    literally,    the   tracing   of  the 
course  of  a  river.    When  we  speak  of  even-handed  justice, 
dogging  the  footsteps  of  crime,  of  the  strong  arm  of  the 
law,    of  the  iron  grip  of  oppression,    no   one   is  foolish 
enough   to   suppose   that   justice   has  a  hand,    the  law 
an   arm,    and   crime   a  foot,    any  more  than  he  would 
imagine  that  a  field  can  laugh,  or  that  the  wind  has  an 
eye,  and  the  storm  a  bad  temper,  when  we  speak  of  a 
smiling  landscape,  of  the  eye  of  the  wind,  or  of  a  furious 


1 82       The  Metaphorical  Language  applied  to 

storm,  lliese  are  simply  figurative,  or,  if  you  will,  anthro- 
pomorphic ways  of  expressing  things. 

Now  it  cannot  be  doubted  that  this  pictorial  and 
concrete  style  is  very  telling  and  effective.  In  fact,  it  is 
one  of  the  secrets  of  true  eloquence ;  for  the  more  we 
clothe  things  in  language  derived  from  human  attributes, 
instead  of  wrapping  them  up  in  metaphysical  abstractions, 
so  much  the  easier  is  it  to  strike  home  to  the  hearts  of 
our  hearers.  And  if  this  be  so,  why  should  God  debar 
Himself  from  the  use  of  human  metaphor  for  the  purpose 
of  expounding  those  ways  which,  when  regarded  in  the 
abstract,  are  past  finding  out  ?  Why  should  He  not  talk 
to  us,  His  children,  in  a  style  suited  to  our  compre- 
hension, and  attractive  to  our  minds  ?  All  true  greatness 
is  near  akin  to  simplicity ;  and  it  seems  to  me  that  there 
is  nothing  more  worthy  of  Him,  whose  judgments  are 
far  above  out  of  our  sight,  than  that  He  should  use 
human  beings  as  His  messengers,  human  language  as  His 
vehicle  of  communication,  and  human  metaphors  as 
exponents  of  His  character,  attributes,  and  actions. 

It  must  be  observed,  moreover,  that  the  anthro- 
pomorphic expressions  given  above  are  not  presented 
formally  by  the  sacred  writers  as  a  complete  account  of 
the  nature  and  attributes  of  God ;  on  the  contrary,  I 
have  had  to  read  the  whole  Old  Testament  through  to 
find  them,  and  have  culled  them  from  various  parts,  and 
arranged  them  under  various  heads  as  best  I  could. 
The  Hebrew  writers  have  abstained  from  giving  us  any 
such  disquisitions  on  the  essential  nature  of  God  as  might 
gratify  the  curiosity  of  an  inquiring  intellect ;  or  any  such 
pictorial  descriptions  as  could  feed  an  excited  imagina- 
tion. Thus,  when  the  elders  "  saw  the  God  of  Israel " 
(Exodus  xxiv.   lo),  7vhat  did  they  see?      We  are  not 


God  in  the  Old  Testamejtt.  i§3 

told.  When  the  prophet  heard  the  still  small  voice 
saying  unto  him,  "  What  doest  thou  here,  Elijah  ?  "  he 
hid  his  face  in  his  mantle,  and  saw  nothing.  When 
Isaiah  *'  saw  the  Lord  sitting  upon  His  throne,"  what 
sort  of  a  vision  was  vouchsafed  to  him?  Something 
which  made  him  feel  his  sinfulness  and  impurity,  but  we 
are  not  told  what  it  was.  And  so  when  Ezekiel  had 
those  marvellous  visions,  which  are  described  in  his 
prophecy,  there  is  no  formal  description  of  the  appearance 
of  God  Himself  The  human  feelings,  words,  and  deeds 
ascribed  to  God  in  the  Old  Testament  are  nowhere  set 
forth  as  an  account  of  what  He  is  in  His  essential  Being, 
but  are  simply  introduced  into  the  sacred  record  in 
order  to  give  us  some  practical  and  intelligible  idea  of 
His  relations  towards  the  human  race. 

This  point  has  been  well  put  by  one  whom  I  can 
never  name  without  reverence,  the  late  Mr.  Isaac 
Taylor,  in  his  "  Spirit  of  the  Hebrew  Poetry."  After 
remarking  that  the  writings  of  the  Old  Testament  are 
symbolic  in  their  phraseology  and  style,  he  observes  that 
they  are  the  fittest  possible  medium  for  conveying  the 
truth  concerning  the  Divine  nature.  We  find  in  them, 
he  says,  not  a  crude  theology,  adapted  to  the  gross  con- 
ceptions of  a  rude  people,  but  an  ultimate  theology 
adapted  to  the  free  use  of  all  men,  in  all  times,  and 
under  all  conditions  of  intellectual  advancement.  "Age 
after  age,  these  writings  have  met  and  satisfied  the 
requirements  of  piety  and  of  virtue ;  it  has  been  so  as 
well  among  the  most  highly  cultured  as  among  the  un- 
learned, to  whom  they  have  imparted  whatever  it  is 
needful  and  possible  for  man  to  know  concerning  God, 
the  Creator,  the  Ruler,  the  Father,  and  concerning  that 
life  divine,  the  end  of  which  is  the  life  eternal."     "  Scien- 


1 84      The  Metaphorical  Language  applied  to 

tific  theology,"  he  continues,  "  professes  to  regard  the 
Divine  nature  and  attributes  as  its  centre  ;  and  from 
that  centre  (supposed  to  be  known)  inferences  in  all 
directions  are  logically  derived.  But  the  very  contrary 
of  this  is  true  of  BibHcal  theology ;  for  the  central  area 
of  Biblical  Theism  is  the  human  spirit,  in  its  actual 
condition,  its  original  powers,  its  necessary  limitations, 
its  ever-varying  consciousness,  its  lapses,  its  sorrows, 
its  perils,  its  hopes  and  its  fears ;  its  misjudgments,  its 
faiths,  its  unbelief;  its  brightness,  its  darkness;  what- 
ever is  lifelike  in  man,  and  whatever  portends  death." 
In  this  respect,  Isaac  Taylor  truly  says,  Biblical  writers 
differ  from  all  other  teachers,  ancient  and  modern.  They 
speak  of  God,  not  as  an  abstract  Being,  but  in  His  rela- 
tion to  man.  If  for  a  moment  they  utter  what  appears 
to  be  an  abstract  proposition  concerning  Him,  they 
invariably  bring  it  into  contact  with  the  spiritual  wants 
of  man.  Thus  the  Psalmist  says,  "Great  is  the  Lord, 
and  of  great  power.  His  understanding  is  infinite." 
Here  are  three  abstract  propositions,  but  let  us  note  the 
company  in  which  they  appear.  Before  them  come  the 
words,  "He  healeth  the  broken  in  heart.  He  bindeth 
up  their  wounds."  Here  this  infinite  Being  is  brought 
into  close  contact  with  the  sorrowful.  "  He  telleth  the 
number  of  the  stars ;  He  calleth  them  all  by  their 
names."  Here  His  omniscience  is  put  in  a  practical  form 
which  impresses  itself  most  vividly  upon  the  mind. 
Then  comes  the  verse  already  cited,  and  it  is  imme- 
diately followed  by  another  concrete  and  figurative,  but 
intensely  practical,  aspect  of  His  character  :  "The  Lord 
lifteth  up  the  meek.  He  casteth  the  wicked  down  to  the 
ground"  (Psalm  cxlvii.  3—6).  Now  what  a  good 
working  conception  of  the  character  and  attributes  of  God 


God  ill  the  Old  Testament  185 

we  obtain  from  these  four  verses  !  How  much  more 
intelligible  and  practical  than  a  string  of  abstract  meta- 
physical propositions  would  have  been  !  Nor  is  this  a 
solitary  instance.  I  could  readily  recite  a  hundred  passages 
equally  effective  ;  in  fact,  the  Bible  is  studded  over  with 
these  gems  of  thought,  all  clear,  sublime,  practical,  and 
— may  I  not  add  ? — in  accordance  with  the  demands  of 
the  human  consciousness. 

The  truth  is,  that  when  we  begin  to  speculate  about 
God,  we  get  lost ;  and  the  longer  we  labour  to  grasp  a 
scientific  theory  of  the  Divine  Being,  the  deeper  we 
plunge  in  the  mist.  But  the  Hebrew  writers  make  short 
work  of  philosophical  theories,  and  confine  themselves 
to  categorical  statements  in  figurative  language.  Who, 
for  example,  can  realize  the  omnipresence  of  God,  or 
His  omniscience  ?  Who  can  grasp  the  conception  of  a 
conscious  Being  pervading  all  existence  ?  It  is  hard  in- 
deed when  we  begin  to  reason  upon  the  matter  philoso- 
phically; but  it  is  propounded  intelligibly,  and  commands 
our  instant  assent,  when  set  forth  in  such  words  as  the 
following  : — "  The  eyes  of  the  Lord  are  in  every  place 
beholding  the  evil  and  the  good."  "  Thou  knowest  my 
down-sitting  and  mine  uprising;  Thou  understandest 
my  thought  afar  off.  Ihou  art  about  my  path  and 
about  my  bed,  and  spiest  out  all  my  ways.  If  I  ascend 
up  into  heaven.  Thou  art  there ;  if  I  make  my  bed  in 
Hades,  behold, — Thou.  If  I  take  the  wings  of  the  morn- 
ing, and  dwell  in  the  uttermost  parts  of  the  sea,  even  there 
shall  1  hy  hand  lead  me,  and  Thy  right  hand  shall  hold 
me.  If  I  say.  Surely  the  darkness  shall  cover  me,  even 
the  night  shall  be  turned  into  day.  Yea,  the  darkness 
is  no  darkness  with  Thee ;  the  night  is  as  clear  as  the 
v.-y;  the  darkness  and  light  to  Thee  are  both  alike." 


1 86       The  Metaphorical  Language  applied  to 

Such  is  the  method  by  which  God  lodges  a  right  con- 
ception of  His  attributes  in  the  heart  of  man.  Other 
modes  might  be  devised  which  would  appear  more 
scientific  and  philosoi)hical,  but  can  any  be  found  which 
is  more  effective  and  more  thoroughly  adapted  to  the 
wants  of  the  world  ? 

A  careful  consideration  of  these  and  similar  passages 
of  Scripture  will  lead  us  to  the  conclusion  that  the 
Hebrew  writers  stand  alone  as  the  teachers,  not  merely 
of  monotheism,  but  of  the  spirit-stirring  belief  that  God  is 
not  far  from  every  one  of  us,  and  that  His  nearness  has  for 
its  object  the  elevation  of  man  to  his  true  position.  The 
heaven  is  God's  throne  and  the  earth  is  His  footstool,  but 
"  to  this  man,"  He  says,  "  will  I  look,  even  to  him  that  is 
poor,  and  of  a  contrite  spirit,  and  that  trembleth  at  my 
word."  He  inhabits  eternity,  and  dwells  in  the  high  and 
holy  place,  but  also  ''  with  him  that  is  of  a  contrite  and 
humble  spirit,  to  revive  the  spirit  of  the  humble,  and  to 
revive  the  heart  of  the  contrite  ones."  Passages  such 
as  these  are  like  a  stream  of  light  and  heat  sent  down 
from  heaven  upon  the  dwelling  of  the  humble  wor- 
shipper. Whether  he  be  one  who  turns  the  soil  for  his 
daily  bread,  or  be  the  occupant  of  a  professor's  chair,  it 
will  be  the  same  theology  that  he  hence  derives. 

Nor  is  there  the  slightest  fear  lest  these  strong  figurative 
expressions  concerning  God  should  be  misunderstood  by 
a  thoughtful  reader.  When  the  Psalmist  says,  "The 
Lord  is  in  His  holy  temple,  the  Lord's  seat  is  in  heaven. 
His  eyes  behold.  His  eyelids  try  the  children  of  men,"  no 
one  would  go  away  with  the  impression  that  the  Lord's 
presence  is  confined  to  some  particular  building,  or  that 
He  has  a  literal  and  material  seat  or  throne,  or  that  He 
has  eyes  and  eyelids.     He  would  rather  understand  that 


God  in  the  Old  Testament.  187 

whilst  the  Lord  is  dweUing  in  an  atmosphere  of  holiness, 
and  occupying  the  infinite  space  of  heaven  with  His  pre- 
sence, and  ruling  all  the  heavenly  bodies  with  His  power, 
He  yet  has  time  and  thought  to  observe  the  characters 
and  conduct  of  men,  singly.  The  dropping  of  the 
eyelid  for  the  purpose  of  reflective  scrutiny  would  indi- 
cate to  him  God's  determination  ani  a  power  to  look 
through  disguises,  and  rightly  to  discern  the  thoughts  of  the 
heart.  Again,  when  the  reader  meets  with  the  precious 
words,  "Underneath  are  the  everlasting  arms,"  it  would 
not  occur  to  him  that  God  had  arms,  but  he  would  un- 
understand  that  the  Divine  Being  is  one  able  and  willing 
to  support  those  who  lean  upon  Him  and  trust  Him, 
under  all  circumstances  and  throughout  all  time.  Once 
more,  when  one  reads  the  words,  *'I  have  gfaven  tfiee  on 
the  palms  of  my  hands,  "who  would  argue  from  them  that 
God  had  palms  to  His  hands  ?  Certainly  no  one  in  his 
senses.  The  inquirer  would  soon  find  out  their  mean- 
ing, viz.,  that  God  will  never  forget  the  wants  and  in- 
terests of  His  people,  who  are  as  close  and  as  present  to 
Him  as  they  would  be  to  a  man  who  had  written  their 
names  on  the  palms  of  his  hands. 

I  need  not,  however,  press  such  points  as  these. 
They  must  be  manifest  to  every  reflective  mind.  Let  us 
rather  advance  to  what  is,  after  all,  the  most  important 
consideration;  viz.,  that  the  human  metaphors  whereby 
the  nature  and  doings  of  God  are  described  in  the  Old 
Testament  are  not  only  the  best  available  means,  but, 
when  taken  in  conjunction  with  the  rest  of  the  teaching 
of  Scripture,  are  fully  adequate  to  efl"ect  their  purpose. 

We  sometimes  speak  of  God  as  bare  spirit,  and  as 
separated  by  an  infinite  gulf  from  the  material  universe  ; 
but  we  must  take  care  not  to  draw  false  inferences  from 


1 88       The  Metaphorical  Language  appAed  to 

such  a  statement.  For  who  can  venture  to  draw  a  de- 
finite boundary  line  between  mind  and  matter  ?  Who 
can  determine  the  exact  point  at  which  spiritual  existence 
ceases  to  hold  relationship  with  material  ?  There  are 
some,  indeed,  who  go  so  far  as  to  tell  us  that  mind  is 
only  a  mode  of  matter,  and  that  consciousness  results 
from  certain  dispositions  of  the  physical  forces  which  run 
through  the  universe  j  whilst  others  hold  that  matter  is 
the  product  of  mind,  that  even  the  created  human  will 
and  intellect  are  constantly  showing  their  superiority  over 
earth,  and  that  consequently  the  First  Cause  of  all  things 
visible  and  invisible  must  have  generated  the  material 
out  of  the  spiritual.  Certain  it  is  that  there  are  traces 
of  unity  and  of  design  in  the  natural  world  which 
lead  many  to  believe  that  it  proceeds  from  one  intelli- 
gent Being,  who,  forasmuch  as  He  is  not  revealed  to  any 
of  our  senses,  may  be  regarded  as  a  spirit.  If  this  be 
allowed  to  be  true,  at  least  for  the  sake  of  argument,  then 
we  should  reasonably  expect  that  the  most  spiritual  part 
of  creation  would,  to  some  extent,  express  the  nature, 
the  character,  and  the  attributes  of  the  Creator.  Now  the 
highest,  the  noblest  part  of  the  known  creation  is  man — 
am  I  taking  too  much  upon  myself  in  saying  this  ? — and 
if  so,  it  is  in  man  especially  that  we  must  look  for  the 
characteristics  of  God.  As  in  each  one  of  us  the  limbs  are 
intended  to  express  and  develop  into  action  the  feelings 
and  intentions  of  the  heart  and  will,  so  we  may  conceive 
that  the  human  being,  holding,  as  he  does,  the  highest 
rank  in  the  visible  creation,  is  so  constituted  as  to  exhibit, 
at  lea^t,  the  germs  and  rudiments  of  the  attributes  of 
his  Creator ;  and  thus,  to  revert  to  an  old  saying,  though 
nature  [i.e,^  the  purely  material  world)  conceals  God,  yet 
man  reveals  Him.     Nature  obeys,  but  man  commands; 


God  in  the  Old  Testament.  189 

nature  is  silent,  but  man  speaks  ;  nature  is  almost  mono- 
tonous in  its  regularity,  but  man  is  constantly  adapting 
himself  to  new  circumstances.  The  points  in  which  the 
lower  animals  rise  above  the  inanimate  world  are  just 
those  in  which  they  resemble  man ;  and  the  points  in 
which  man  exceeds  the  qualities  of  the  lower  animals 
are  those  in  which  he  approaches  the  nature  of  God. 
As  there  is  such  a  thing  as  a  correlation  of  physical 
forces,  according  to  which  the  laws  of  light,  heat,  and 
motion  are  regulated  on  analogous  principles,  so  there  is 
a  correlation  of  moral  and  spiritual  forces,  according  to 
which  human  faculties,  human  thoughts,  human  feel- 
ings, and  human  actions  afford  some  analogies  whereby 
we  can  discern  the  nature  of  that  Being  who  is  the 
source  and  spring  of  the  human  race. 

This  is  the  secret  of  the  anthropomorphism  of  the  Old 
Testament,  and  is  implied  in  the  first  page,  where  we 
read  the  glorious  words,  "And  God  said.  Let  us  make 
man  in  our  image,  after  our  likeness."  Ma;i  is  here 
regarded  as  God's  offspring.  If  we  could  find  a  perfect 
man,  not  only  sound  in  body,  but  also  pure  in  heart,  keen 
in  understanding,  strong  in  will,  firm  in  purpose,  and 
sublime  in  unselfishness,  then  we  should  have,  at  least  in 
h's  moral  and  spiritual  functions,  the  best  possible  image 
of  God.  If  the  child  is  the  truest  representative  of  the 
/ather,  then  man,  when  seen  at  his  best,  must  be  the 
fairest  representative  of  God;  and  even  human  nature,  as 
we  observe  it  now,  with  all  its  faults,  furnishes  far  better 
illustrations  of  the  Divine  modes  of  feeling  and  action, 
than  can  be  obtained  from  any  other  source. 

Whilst,  however,  human  actions  and  thoughts  and 
words  are  the  best  terms  in  which  to  unfold  the  working 
of  the  Divine  Being,  yet  they  need  to  be  counterbalanced 


IQO      The  Metaphorical  Language  applied  to 

by  other  expositions  of  His  nature.  We  need  to  be 
taught,  as  the  Old  Testament  teaches  ns,  that  God's  ways 
are  not  our  ways,  neither  are  His  thoughts  our  thoughts ; 
and  that,  as  the  heaven  is  higher  than  the  earth,  so  are 
His  ways  than  our  ways,  and  His  thoughts  than  our 
thoughts.  We  need  to  be  reminded  that  we  cannot  by 
searching  find  out  God ;  that  we  cannot  find  out  the 
Almighty  to  perfection ;  and  that,  while  much  is  revealed 
to  us  and  to  our  children,  there  are  still  secret  things 
which  belong  only  to  God.  The  outward  and  visible 
universe  is  but  a  part  of  His  way  :  but  "  the  thunder  of 
His  power,  who  can  understand?  " 

In  accordance  with  these  necessary  precautions,  the 
differentia^  so  to  speak,  of  God,  those  points  in  which  He 
differs  from  man,  are  dwelt  upon  at  various  times  in  the 
Old  Testament ;  and  it  will  be  observed  that  the  differ- 
ence lies  not  in  their  moral  or  intellectual  qualities  as 
such,  but  in  the  intensity  of  these  qualities,  and  in  the 
mode  in  which  they  work.  Love,  long-suffering,  purity, 
holiness,  compassion,  will,  determination,  understanding, 
and  wisdom,  stand  for  the  same  kind  of  attributes  in  God 
as  in  man.  But  they  differ  in  their  fineness  and  perfection, 
and  also  in  their  durability  and  extension.  Thus  man's 
love  is  fleeting,  but  God's  is  everlasting ;  a  mother  may 
forget  her  child,  but  God  will  not  forget ;  man  gets  faint 
and  weary  in  well  doing,  but  God  fainteth  not,  neither, 
is  weary;  man  has  a  limited  intelligence,  but  there 
is  no.  searching  of  God's  understanding;  man  may 
be  great,  but  there  is  no  end  of  God's  greatness. 
In  a  word,  take  a  fully  developed  man;  intensify  all 
his  moral  and  intellectual  qualities  infinitely,  take  from 
him  all  those  material  limitations  which  make  him 
a     creature    of    time   and    space;   regard    him    as   an 


God  in  the  Old  Testament.  191 

absolute,  eternal,  omnipresent,  spiritual  being,  the  essence 
of  all  that  is  pure  and  holy  and  loving.  Picture  up  such 
a  being  as  having  created  the  universe;  as  having 
appointed  and  carried  out  all  the  details  of  every  part; 
as  sustaining  all  things  from  moment  to  moment ;  as  the 
source  and  fountain  of  all  forces,  whether  physical  or  spirit- 
ual ;  as  the  real  agent  of  all  things,  even  where  secondary 
causes  are  at  work ;  as  the  founder  of  the  human  race ; 
and  as  claiming  the  affection  and  obedience  of  those 
whom  he  has  thus  brought  into  existence,  and  whom 
he  has  endued  with  free  will,  and  with  various  spiritual 
faculties.  You  will  then  have  the  sort  of  picture  which 
the  Old  Testament  presents  of  God,  viewed  in  relation 
to  man. 

The  Jews,  if  they  believed  their  Old  Testament,  must 
have  had  a  truly  spiritual  conception  of  God.  He  was 
revealed  to  them  as  an  unseen  spectator  of  human  action, 
giving  to  each  man  a  time  of  probation.  "  Behold,  I  go 
forward,"  says  Job,  "but  He  is  not  there;  and  backward, 
but  I  cannot  perceive  Him  :  on  the  left  hand,  where  He 
doth  work,  but  I  cannot  behold  Him  :  He  hideth 
Himself  on  the  right  hand,  that  I  cannot  see  Him  :  but 
He  knoweth  the  way  that  I  take  :  when  He  hath  tried 
me,  I  shall  come  forth  as  gold'"  (Job  xxiii.  8 — 10).  He 
is  absolute^  doing  whatsoever  He  pleases  and  thinks  right 
in  heaven  and  earth  (Ps.  cxxxv.  6).  He  is  i7ijin:te ; 
the  heavens  cannot  contain  Him,  though  He  fills  all 
heaven  and  earth  with  His  presence;  "It  is  He  that 
sitteth  upon  the  circle  of  the  earth,  and  the  inhabitants 
thereof  are  as  grasshoppers ;  that  stretcheth  out  the 
heavens  as  a  curtain,  aud  spreadeth  them  out  as  a  tent 
to  dwell  in;  that  bringeth  the  princes  to  nought,  and 
maketh  the  judges  of  the  earth  as  nothingness."     Well 


192       The  Metaphorical  Language  applied  to 

may  He  ask  the  question,  "  To  whom,  then,  will  ye  liken 
Me,  or  shall  I  be  equal?  Lift  up  your  eyes  on  high, 
and  behold  who  hath  created  these  (stars),  bringing 
out  their  host  by  number,  calling  them  all  by  their  names, 
by  the  greatness  of  His  might,  for  that  He  is  strong 
in  power;  not  one  faileth."     (See  Isaiah  xl.) 

The  Jews  were  not  taught  to  regard  Jehovah  as  their  own 
peculiar  Divinity,  on  a  par  with  the  gods  of  other  nations. 
He  was  not  the  God  of  the  Jews  only,  but  also  of  the 
Gentiles,  for  their  idols  were  really  no  gods.  He  is  de- 
scribed as  the  God  of  the  spirits  of  all  flesh,  i.e.^  the  central 
force,  or  the  essence  of  forces  (for  this  seems  to  be  the 
meaning  of  the  Hebrew  name  for  God),  through  whose 
•  agency  spiritual  life  manifests  itself,  more  or  less,  in  all 
men  (Num.  xvi.  22;  xxvii.  t6).  Though  He  was  in  a 
peculiar  sense  the  King  of  Israel  (i  Sam.  xii.  12),  yet  He 
was  also  to  be  feared  as  King  of  nations  (Jer.  x.  7,  10), 
not  only  because  He  is  the  Creator,  Preserver,  and  Lord 
of  all,  but  because  He  divided  to  all  nations  their 
inh'3ritance  upon  earth  (Deut.  xxxii.  8  ;  Jer.  xxvii.  5). 

Again,  the  Jews  were  especially  guarded  against  the 
entertaining  of  any  material  notions  of  God.  They  were 
taught  that  He  was  a  Being  whom  they  had  not  seen, 
and  therefore  they  were  not  to  attempt  to  make  an  image 
of  Him.  An  appeal,  indeed,  had  been  made  by  Him  at 
Mount  Sinai  to  their  sense  of  hearing,  but  not  to  their 
sense  of  sight.  They  had  heard  a  voice,  but  had  seen 
no  .form  (Deut.  iv.  12,  19,  32 — 36).  They  were  taught 
that  He  was  not  confmed  to  any  locality ;  that  their 
approach  to  Him  was  to  be  spiritual,  and  depending  upon 
distance;  for  however  far  they  were  from  their  native 
land,  they  could  find  Him,  if  only  they  sought  Him  with 
all  their  heart  (Deut.  iv.  29).      Though  high  up,  and  far 


God  in  the  Old  Testament.  193 

above  out  of  their  sight,  He  was  very  near  the  contrite 
heart  (Isa.  Ivii.  15);  and  the  only  thing  that  kept  Him 
apart  from  them  was  their  sin  (Isa.  Hx.  2).     The  most 
holy  place  in  the  tabernacle  and  temple,  where  He  dwelt 
between  the  cherubim,  was  not  regarded  by  them  as  His 
local  habitation.     It  was  simply  the   place  where   the 
priest  should  bring  the  sacrificial  blood,  which  was  the 
sign  of  their  sin,  into  contact  with  the  ark  containing  the 
law,  which  was  the  sign  of  His  holiness  and  love.     The 
symbolic  actions  of  the  priest  represented  God's  nature 
and  dealings,  but  there  was  no  one  definite  created  object 
which  represented  the  Divine  Being  Himself.     All  was 
dark  within  that  veil,  because  He  could  not  be  unfolded 
to  their  sight  (2  Chron.  vi.    i).     Clouds  and  darkness 
were  round  about  Him,  because  the  true  full  light  was 
not  yet  revealed.     When  King  Solomon  was  dedicating 
an  earthly  abode  to  God's  honour,  he  spoke  of  heaven 
as  the  real  dwelling-place  of  the  Most  High,  but  added, 
what  we  all  feel  to  be  true,  that  the  heaven  and  the 
heaven  of  heavens   could  not  contain  Him  (2  Chron. 
vi.  18). 

Such  are  the  safeguards  provided  in  the  Jewish  Scrip- 
tures to  counterbalance,  to  qualify,  and  to  expound  the 
anthropomorphic  language  in  which  the  dealings  of  God 
are  set  forth  in  other  passages. 

There  are  two  truths  with  regard  to  the  Divine  nature 
which  are  taken  for  granted  in  Scripture ;  one  is,  that  what- 
ever powers  man  has,  those  God  must  necessarily  have  too. 
The  faculties  of  the  creature  exist  in  the  Creator,  because 
the  cause  must  always  include  the  elements  of  the  effect. 
Thispoint  is  brought  out  forcibly  in  the  ninety-fourth  Psalm, 
where  we  read  that  certain  oppressors  of  the  widow,  the 
fatherless,  and  the  stranger,  imagined  that  the  Lord  did  not 

13 


194      TJ^  Metaphorical  Language  applied  to 

see  what  they  were  doing.  How  does  the  Psalmist  argue 
the  matter?  He  appeals  to  their  reason  :  "  Understand, 
ye  brutish  among  the  people,  and  ye  fools,  when  will  ye 
be  wise  ?  He  that  planted  the  ear,  shall  He  not  hear  ? 
He  that  formed  the  eye,  shall  He  not  see?  He  that 
teacheth  man  knowledge,  shall  He  not  know  ?  "  Similar 
questions  might  be  raised  with  regard  to  all  the  faculties 
and  powers  in  human  nature. 

The  other  truth  is,  that  though  God  has  all  the  powers 
which  man  has.  He  does  not  exercise  them  through  the 
fleshly  or  material  instrumentality  that  man  requires. 
Thus  Job  asks  God,  "  Hast  Thou  eyes  of  flesh  ?  or  seest 
Thou  as  man  seeth  ? "  (Job  x.  4).  Man,  as  at  present 
constituted,  cannot  obtain  knowledge  of  the  material 
world  except  through  the  corporeal  organs,  nor  can  he 
think,  reason,  feel,  or  imagine,  without  a  material  brain. 
But  we  gather  from  Scripture  that  the  results  which  we 
thus  obtain  through  such  elaborate  and  delicate  instru- 
ments as  the  eye,  and  the  ear,  and  the  brain,  are  attained 
by  the  First  Cause  of  these  organs  without  any  such 
instrumentalities.  This  is  natural,  and  is  only  analogous 
to  the  differences  which  we  see  between  the  strong  and 
the  weak,  between  the  learned  and  unlearned  upon  earth. 
I  may  leap  over  a  deep  and  wide  ditch,  but  I  tell  my  little 
child  that  he  must  go  all  the  way  round  by  a  bridge.  I 
may  work  out  a  mathematical  problem  in  my  mind,  but 
my  child  must  go  through  an  elaborate  process  on  his 
slate  so  as  to  produce  the  required  result. 

Let  me  give  two  instances  which  may  illustrate  this 
truth.  In  Deuteronomy  i.  33,  God  is  described  as  going 
before  Israel  to  search  out  a  place  where  they  should 
pitch  their  tents.  This  is  a  process  with  which  every 
traveller  in  the  East  is  familiar.     I  well  remember  how, 


God  in  the  Old  Testament  195 

when  I  was  travelling  through  the  Holy  Land,  some 
one  used  to  be  sent  forwards,  as  we  approached  our 
resting-place  for  the  night,  to  search  out  a  suitable  place 
where  we  should  pitch  our  tents.  But  would  the 
Jews,  on  reading  the  above  passage,  imagine  that  God 
had  to  look  here  and  there  before  resolving  where  they 
should  pitch  ?  No.  They  would  only  learn  that  the  most 
fitting  resting-place  was  always  found  for  them  by  God, 
and  that  they  were  led  to  it,  not  fortuitously,  but  under 
the  guidance  of  His  providence. 

Again,  we  read  in  several  places  that  God  repented. 
Are  we  to  suppose  from  such  passages  that  He  was  really 
sorry  for  what  He  had  done,  and  that  He  had  confessedly 
made  a  mistake  ?  Surely  not.  They  simply  mean  that 
the  same  result  was  attained  by  God,  as  would  have  been 
produced  by  repentance  in  man's  case.  If  correspond- 
ing results  had  been  arrived  at  under  human  govern- 
ment, we  should  have  said  that  they  sprang  from  repent- 
ance, and  therefore  the  word  is  fitly  used  with  regard  to 
the  Divine  action.  But  lest  we  should  interpret  the  word 
too  literally,  and  should  imagine  that  God  not  only 
arrives  at  the  results  which  repentance  produces,  but 
also  goes  through  the  process  of  repentance,  as  it  is 
exhibited  in  man,  we  find  that  in  the  very  chapter  in 
which  God  is  described  as  repenting  that  He  had  made 
Saul  king  over  Israel,  it  is  recorded  emphatically,  that 
"  the  Strength  of  Israel  will  not  lie  nor  repent ;  for  He 
is  not  a  man  that  He  should  repent "  (i  Sam.  xv.  11,  29, 
35).  Thus  the  one  passage  is  checked  and  counter- 
balanced by  the  other.  And  so  we  shall  find  it  in 
other  instances,  which  at  first  sight  might  present  some 
difficulty. 

I  feel  bound  here  to  remark  on  one  passage  which 

/mHIVBRSITV 


196      The  Metaphorical  Language  applied  to 

cannot  have  escaped  your  notice.     You  remember  that 
when  Moses,  feeHng  that  his  faith  needed  to  be  confirmed, 
prayed  to  God,  saying,  "  I  beseech  Thee,  show  me  Thy 
glory,"  the  Lord   is  represented   as  answering,    "Thou 
canst  not  see  my  face  :  for  there  shall  no  man  see  me,  and 
live."     But  He  added,  "  I   will  make  all  my  goodness 
pass  before  thee,  and  I  will  proclaim  the  name  of  the 
Lord  before  thee;   .  .  .   and  I  will  cover  thee  with  my 
hand  while  I  pass  by :  and  I  will  take  away  mine  hand, 
and  thou   shalt   see   my  back  (or  that  which  cometh 
after  me),  but  my  face  shall  not  be  seen"  (Ex.  xxxiii. 
18 — 23).     Now  it   is  manifest   that  this   passage  must 
be  considered   as  modifying   what  would  otherwise   be 
the  literal  interpretation  of  Exodus  xxiv.  10,  11,   where 
we  read  that  the  elders  "  saw  "  the  God  of  Israel.     We 
cannot  suppose  that  they  could  have  higher  privileges  than 
Moses ;  we  may  therefore   conclude  that  the  vision  or 
sight  of  God  referred  to  in  the  twenty-fourth  chapter  was 
akin  to  that  spoken  of  in  the  thirty-third.     But  the  ques- 
tion arises,  What,  after  all,  did  they  see  ?  and  what  did 
Moses  see  ?     I  have  already  pointed  out  the  impossibiHty 
of  answering  this  question.     Considering  that  God  is  con- 
stantly set  forth  as  an  infinite  spiritual  Being,  He  cannot 
have  been  beheld  in  His  essential  attributes  by  the  naked 
eye ;  but  those  privileged  persons  may  have  seen   some 
symbol  or  symbols   of  His   varied  attributes  ;   if  so,  it 
would   be   clearly   understood   by   the   spectators    that 
they  were  symbols.     We  are  told  that  the  Lord  descended 
in  the  cloud,  and  stood  with  Moses  on  Mount  Sinai,  and 
proclaimed  the  name  of  the  Lord.  "  And  the  Lord  passed 
by  before  him,  and  proclaimed  the  Lord,  the  Lord  God, 
merciful  and  gracious,  long-suffering,  and  abundant  in 
goodness  and  truth,  keeping  mercy  for  thousands,  for- 


God  in  the  Old  Testament.  igy 

giving  iniquity,  and  transgression,  and  sin,  and  that  will  by- 
no  means  clear  (the  guilty)."  What  a  noble  name  !  what 
sublime  attributes  !  These  were  impressed  upon  the  mind 
of  Moses,  apparently  in  some  outward  and  visible  way, 
whether  through  symbolical  representations  or  otherwise. 
Then  it  was  that  there  passed  before  him  One  whom  he 
was  withheld  from  looking  upon  face  to  face,  but  whose 
retreating  form  he  was  permitted  to  behold.  This  form 
was  probably  like  unto  that  of  a  son  of  man,  clad  in 
robes  of  majesty  and  glory.  Such  may  have  been  the 
nature  of  the  vision,  if  we  take  the  words  literally,  and 
believe  that  Moses  actually  beheld  the  back  of  God. 
But  it  is  possible  that  we  should  understand  by  th^face 
of  God  his  essential  Being,  and  by  the  back  that  which 
proceeds  from  Him,  i.e..,  the  results  of  His  attributes,  and 
the  workings  of  His  goodness.  These  may  have  been 
unfolded  in  visions  to  the  favoured  few,  who  were,  thus 
enabled  to  realize  the  Divine  attributes,  not  indeed  as 
they  are  in  their  essence,  but  as  they  are  exhibited  in 
God's  dealings  with  His  people.  They  saw  the  Back, 
not  the  Face  ;  the  results,  not  the  processes. 

There  is  one  other  point  with  regard  to  our  subject 
which  must  not  pass  unnoticed,  namely,  that  God  con- 
descends in  the  Old  Testament  to  make  use  of  the 
terms  of  human  relationship,  in  order  to  set  forth  the 
family  bond  which  exists  between  Himself  and  the 
children  of  men.  Amongst  the  gifts  bestowed  upon  the 
human  race,  none  is  so  great  or  so  beautiful  as  love.  This 
precious  gift  is  nurtured  in  us  from  infancy ;  it  branches 
out  in  many  directions,  and  links  us  with  the  past, 
the  present,  and  the  future  generations.  Most  wonder- 
ful and  interesting  it  is  to  turn  to  the  Old  Testament,  and 
find    there  that   whatsoever  is   pure,   and   noble,   and 


198      The  Metaphorical  Language  applied  to 

spiritual  in  social  intercourse,  in  friendly  relationship, 
and  in  family  life,  is  adapted  to  set  forth  the  varied 
aspects  of  the  connection  which  exists  between  God 
and  man.  And  well  may  it  be  so ;  for  what  are  these 
social  and  family  bonds  but  developments  and  repre- 
sentations of  some  of  the  elements  in  the  nature  of  the 
Divine  Being  ?  What  are  they  but  broken  lights  reflect- 
ing the  nature  of  Him,  whose  essential  attribute  is  Love  ? 
The  most  familiar  example  of  this  truth  is  that  which 
affirms  the  Fatherhood  of  God.  It  is  sometimes  asked. 
If  God  is  the  Father  of  the  human  race,  who  is  its 
mother  ?  But  such  a  question  shows  a  misunderstanding 
of  the  Biblical  use  of  the  word  Father  when  applied  to 
God.  They  are  the  spiritual,  not  the  material  aspects 
of  Fatherhood  which  represent  God's  relationship  to 
man.  He  is  called  Father,  because  He  is  the  source  of 
all  human  life  by  creation ;  because  He  is  the  sustainer 
and  educator  of  men,  working  on  them  and  in  them,  either 
directly  or  through  physical  and  social  agencies.  "Have 
we  not  all  one  Father?"  says  the  prophet,  "hath  not  one 
God  created  us  ?  "  (Mai.  ii.  10).  "Thou  art  our  Father," 
says  Isaiah,  "  We  are  the  clay,  and  Thou  the  Potter,  and 
we  are  all  the  work  of  Thy  hands  "  (Isa.  Ixiv.  8.  See  also 
Ex.  iv.  22,  and  Deut.  xxxii.  18).  "The  Tord  thy  God 
supported  thee,  as  a  man  doth  support  his  son"  (Deut. 
i.  31).  "Thou  shalt  also  consider  in  thy  heart,  that 
as  a  man  chasteneth  his  son,  so  the  Lord  thy  God 
chasteneth  thee"  (Deut.  viii.  5).  These  are  some  of  the 
senses  in  which  God  is  described  as  assuming  the 
fatherly  relation  in  dealing  with  His  people.  And  has 
He  not  also  in  His  heart  that  peculiar  tenderness  which 
belongs  to  a  mother  ?  Yes.  He  says  to  Israel,  "  As 
one  whom  his  mother  comforteth,  so  will  I  comfort  you  " 


God  in  the  Old  Testament  199 

(Isa.  Ixvi.  13).  But  you  will  say  that  love  can  exhibit 
itself  in  a  still  stronger  form ;  for  the  conjugal  relation- 
ship is  more  intimate  than  the  parental.  Well,  God 
accepts  it  In  Isaiah  liv.  5,  we  read  these  marvellous 
words,  "  Thy  Maker  is  thy  husband  ; "  and  in  Jeremiah 
iii.  14,  "I  am  married  to  you; "and  in  Hosea  ii.  19, 
"I  will  betroth  thee  unto  me  for  ever." 

And  now  I  must  draw  to  a  close.  I  have  endeavoured 
to  show  that  the  Old  Testament  speaks  of  God  in 
human  metaphor,  not  only  because  this  was  the  sole 
mode  of  approach  to  the  intellect  and  heart,  but  also 
because  of  the  near  relationship  which  exists  between 
the  spiritual  part  of  man  and  the  nature  of  God. 

Regard  the  body  with  its  material  organs, — the  hand, 
the  eye,  the  nostril, — as  the  symbol  and  expression  of 
the  powers  and  emotions  of  the  inner  man ;  and  you  will 
have  taken  the  first  step  necessary  for  the  understanding 
of  Bible  metaphors.  Assume  that  these  powers  and 
emotions  of  the  human  spirit  are  of  the  same  kind, 
though  differing  in  their  extent  and  mode  of  working,  as 
those  which  God  includes  within  His  nature ;  and  you 
will  have  taken  the  second  step.  Imagine  a  perfectly 
wise,  pure,  and  loving  man ;  strip  off  from  him  all  that 
is  material,  all  that  is  conditioned  by  time  and  space,  all 
that  involves  limitation  and  restriction ;  then  the  mental 
and  moral  residuum  gives  you  a  rudimentary  conception  of 
the  God  of  the  Old  Testament ;  and  thus  you  will  have 
taken  the  third  step.  Conceive  this  Being  as  acting 
through  the  so-called  laws  of  nature,  which  are  simply 
the  expressions  of  His  will ;  so  that  whatever  they  effect, 
He  may  be  said  to  effect.  Conceive  also  that  He  has  not 
restricted  Himself  to  those  physical  ordinances  which  we 
regard  as  immutable,  but  that  He  has  reserved  to  Him- 


2CX)    Metaphorical  Language  applied  to  God, 

self  the  light  and  power  of  superseding  them,  or  of  acting 
in  advance  of  them  on  due  occasion ;  and  you  will  have 
reached  a  fourth  step.  Such  a  view  of  the  Divine  Being 
as  you  will  thus  attain  will  not  only  enable  you  to  in- 
terpret rightly  many  passages  of  the  Bible  which  would 
otherwise  prove  a  stumbling-block,  but  will  help  you  to 
realize  the  grandeur  of  human  nature,  its  possibilities 
in  the  unrevealed  future,  and  its  capability  of  becoming 
the  dwelling-place  of  the  Divine  Being  Himself,  who, 
as  some  of  us  believe,  has  taken  the  manhood  into  the 
Godhead. 

We  are  all  constantly  in  danger,  either  of  running  into 
materialism,  which  is  idolatry,  or  else  of  having  such  vague 
and  abstract  views  of  the  Divine  Being  as  tend  to  put 
Him  far  away,  and  practically  result  in  atheism.  The 
Old  Testament  provides  against  both  of  these  dangers. 
It  shows  that  God  is  a  spiritual,  not  a  material  Being. 
It  shows  also  that  His  life  is  closely  akin  to  the  spiritual 
side  of  ours,  and  that  He  is  not  far  from  every  one  of  us ; 
for  in  Him  we  live,  and  move,  and  have  our  being,  and  as 
even  heathen  poets  have  said,  "  We  are  His  offspring." 

Brother  men !  Let  us  own  Him — Let  us  claim  Him 
-as  our  Father ! 


MIRACLES  AS  CREDENTIALS  OF  A 
REVELATION. 

BV 

DR.   GLADSTONE,   F.R.S. 


Miracles  as  Credentials  of  a  Revelation. 


IF  towards  the  close  of  the  Roman  Empire  a  Christian 
advocate  had  stood  up  in  some  Hall  of  Science  in 
Egypt,  Greece,  or  Italy,  and  had  appealed  to  the  testimony 
of  miracles,  he  would  have  found  his  audience  more  ready 
to  admit  them  as  facts  than  as  credentials.  A  Jew  present 
might  have  allowed  that  Jesus  of  Nazareth  healed  many 
sick  persons — indeed,  the  writings  of  the  Rabbis  admit 
it — but  he  would  have  contended  that  these  wonders  were 
performed  by  diabolical  or  at  least  magical  power.  A 
devotee  of  the  pagan  religions  might  have  put  Jesus 
alongside  of  ^sculapius  or  Hercules  among  the  multi- 
tude of  heavenly  powers ;  and  the  mass  of  hearers,  cre- 
dulous or  incredulous,  would  have  classed  the  narratives 
of  the  Christian  with  the  tales  told  of  the  oracles,  the 
story  of  Apollonius  of  Tyana,  and  the  magic  that  was 
pouring  over  the  Roman  world  from  Syria  and  the  more 
distant  East. 

If  some  preacher  of  righteousness  in  the  dark  ages  had 
talked  of  the  Bible  miracles  as  credentials,  he  would  have 
met  with  Uttle  encouragement  from  believers,  and  litde 
opposition  from  sceptics ;  for  stories  of  portents,  occult 
influences,  the  power  of  words,  or  strange  transmutations, 
were  swallowed  without  thought ;  astrology,  alchemy,  and 


204   Miracles  as  Credentials  of  a  Revelation. 

magical  medicine,  were  the  sciences  of  the  day :  but 
whether  the  wondrous  deeds  were  attributed  to  divine  or 
to  infernal  power,  whether  the  miracle-workers  were  to  be 
canonized  or  burnt,  depended  upon  whether  they  gained 
the  endorsement  or  the  anathema  of  the  Church.  Verily 
in  those  ages  faith  in  God  was  weak,  but  faith  in  the 
devil  was  marvellously  strong. 

But  as  I  stand  before  you  this  evening  the  whole  aspect 
of  the  argument  is  changed.  Hercules  and  ^sculapius  died 
long  ago ;  some  of  us  have  crawled  into  the  hollow  under 
the  statue  of  Isis  at  Pompeii,  from  which  the  concealed 
priests  uttered  the  oracles  ;  Apollonius  is  a  romance ;  we 
have  ceased  to  believe  in  magic,  or  to  burn  sorcerers ;  while 
N  as  to  the  devil,  he  is  both  dethroned  and  laughed  at ;  and 
though  a  personal  Satan  keeps  his  place  in  the  general 
creed  of  Christendom,  few  believe  that  his  power  extends 
beyond  the  realm  of  mind  or  spirit.  The  objection  urged 
now  against  miracles  is  not  so  much  that  they  are  incon- 
clusive, as  that  they  are  incredible  ;  and  many  Christians 
as  well  as  sceptics  find  that  the  miraculous  histories  of  the 
Bible  are  not  helps  to  their  faith,  but  difficulties  in  its  way. 

The  advance  of  natural  science  is  the  principal,  though 
not  the  only,  cause  of  this  change  of  view.  And  it  is 
/  because  I  am  a  scientific  man,  and  therefore  capable  of 
appreciating  the  difficulties  of  the  case,  that  this  subject  has 
fallen  to  my  lot.  I  can  indeed  sympathise  with  every 
doubter;  between  the  faith  of  my  childhood  and  my 
present  convictions  there  lay  a  chaos  of  scepticism ;  in  one 
of  my  earliest  essays  I  wrote  of  the  "  dread  uniformity  of 
nature's  laws ; "  and  if  that  presses  heavily  now  on  the 
mind  of  any  of  my  audience,  he  shall  not  hear  from  my 
lips  any  light  or  unfeeling  word.  I  may  add,  however, 
*hat  it  is  many  years  since  I  came  to  the  principal  con- 


Miracles  as  Credentials  of  a  Revelation.    205 

elusions  I  mean  to  express  to-night — conclusions  which 
have  remained  with  little  modification,  though  I  have 
since  studied  Professor  Baden  Powell's  "Order  of  Nature," 
and  many  other  writings  on  various  sides  of  the  con- 
troversy. 

How  is  it  that  this  advance  of  science,  this  triumphal 
progress  of  modern  discovery,  has  affected  our  views  of 
miracles  ?  It  is  not  that  it  has  taught  us  the  existence  of 
natural  laws,  or  revealed  to  us  an  order  injiature.  This 
was  recognized  long  ago.  From  time  immemorial  men 
knew  that  the  sun  rose  and  set  regularly,  and  that  the 
moon  went  through  certain  regular  phases ;  and  thousands 
of  years  ago  attempts  were  made  to  calculate  such  appa- 
rently irregular  things  as  eclipses.  Polytheistic  nations 
may  indeed  have  thought  that  one  god  interfered  some- 
times with  the  proceedings  of  another,  but  the  worshippers 
of  the  one  Jehovah  at  least  believed  Him  without  a  rival, 
and  held  it  as  one  of  His  most  ancient  and  most  solemn 
promises  that  ''  while  the  earth  remaineth,  seed-time  and 
harvest,  and  cold  and  heat,  and  summer  and  winter,  and 
day  and  night,  shall  not  cease."  This  fore-ordained  order 
of  events  was  personified  in  the  Greek  and  Latin  mytho- 
logies as  Moira,  or  Fate ;  and  taking  rank  as  a  deity,  her 
influence  appeared  so  irresistible,  that  the  question  arose 
whether  Fate  was  subject  to  Jupiter,  or  Jupiter  to  Fate. 
The  philosophers  of  Greece  recognized  just  as  fully  the 
order  of  nature,  and  as  far  back  as  Pythagoras  the  word 
Kosmos,  beauty  and  order,  was  used  to  signify  the 
universe.  It  became  the  term  commonly  employed,  so 
that  to  a  Greek  the  two  ideas  glided  into  one,  and  Kosmos 
was  afterwards  defined  as  "  the  connected  system  of 
all  things,  the  order  and  arrangement  of  the  whole  pre- 
served under  the  Gods,  and  by  the  Gods."    And  not 


0 


2o6  Miracles  as  Credentials  of  a  Revelation, 

very  different  from  this,  except  in  the  use  of  the  singular 
/    for  the  plural,  are  the  words  addressed  by  a  Jewish  sage 

/     to  the  Almighty,  "  Thou  hast  ordered  all  things  in  mea- 

'     sure,  and  number,  and  weight." 

Of  course  we  understand  the  laws  of  nature  incompa- 
rably better  than  the  Greeks  or  Jews  did ;  many  things 
that  once  seemed  to  break  the  harmony  have  now  fallen 
into  their  proper  places,  and  large  regions  of  phenomena 
hitherto  undreamt  of  have  been  opened  to  our  gaze. 
Gradually  the  mechanism  of  the  great  universe  is  being 
made  clearer  and  clearer  to  the  human  intellect.    We  trace 

^^  the  continuity  of  its  several  parts ;  we  believe  in  the  in- 
)  destructibility  of  matter,  the  transformation  of  force,  and 
the  conservation  of  energy.  Such  faith  have  we  in  the 
analogy  of  nature,  that  in  our  laboratories  we  often  pre- 
dict "measure,  number,  and  weight,"  before  we  try  the 
experiment,  and  even  foretell  the  boiling  points  and  other 
properties  of  compound  bodies  that  have  never  yet  been 
produced.  Yet,  while  holding  that  the  amount  of  energy 
in  the  universe  always  remains  the  same,  we  believe  not 
in  a  ceaseless  round  of  phenomena,  but  in  a  certain  slow 
progress  towards  perfection ;  and  we  understand,  or  think 
we  understand,  more  and  more  of  the  origin  of  things, 
and  the  various  stages  of  development  by  which  the 
objects  and  living  beings  around  us  have  come  into 
existence. 

But  the  great  influence  of  modem  science  on  this 
question  of  miracles  has  not  arisen  from  the  additional 
proofs  that  the  proceedings  of  nature  are  orderly,  so 
much  as  from  the  perception  that  those  proceedings  are 
independent  of  the  interests  of  men.     The  progress  of 

fi^\  knowledge  has  abolished  the  belief  in  portents  and  omens. 

^  If  a  comet  shook  its  dreadful  sword,  if  a  coronet  of  red 


Miracles  as  Credentials  of  a  Revelation.    207 

flames  sprang  up  from  the  northern  horizon,  or  if  the 
heavens  rained  tears  of  fire,  it  was  thought  to  presage 
some  dire  calamity,  but  now  we  compare  the  flashing  of 
the  aurora  with  the  trembling  of  our  magnetic  needles, 
and  we  calculate  the  orbit  of  the  comet,  or  the  return  of 
the  shower  of  shooting  stars.  It  is  true  that  nativities 
are  still  cast,  and  fortunes  are  told,  but  only  in  the  dark 
corners  of  European  society.  The  progress  of  science, 
too,  has  exorcised  nature,  and  showing  that  "  all  are  but 
parts  of  one  stupendous  whole,"  it  has  left  no  room  for  the 
freaks  of  evil  spirits.  Science  has  taught  us,  moreover,  / 
that  nature  is  "  no  respecter  of  persons,"  and  is  unmoved 
by  fear,  or  love,  or  pity.  The  benevolence  or  religious 
worth  of  a  Christian  visitor  is  no  protection  to  him  in  the  ..^^^ 
.wards  of  a  fever  hospital,  and  the  agony  of  a  thousand  (Sj 
men,  women,  and  children  made  no  difference  to  the 
heeling  over  of  the  Atlantic  when  she  struck  on  the  Sambro 
Rock. 

Yet,  while  science  asserts  that  the  course  of  nature  does 
not  turn  aside  for  the  benefit  of  men,  Christianity  main-  /^ 
tains  that  it  has  been  sometimes   so  turned  aside,  and  \^ 
many  intelligent  Christians  believe  that  it  sometimes  is 
so  still. 

*'  Incredible  !  "  cries  Hume.  "  We  have  this  only  on 
human  testimony,  and  it  is  far  more  in  accordance  with 
experience  that  human  testimony  should  be  false,  than  , 
that  miracles  should  take  place."  More  in  accordance 
with  your  experience  and  mine  no  doubt ;  but  to  assume 
that  miracles  are  contrary  to  universal  experience  is  to 
assume  the  point  at  issue.  Hume's  argument  would 
leave  it  impossible  to  believe  in  any  extraordinary  event 
in  past  history.  But  I  will  not  repeat  the  various  answers 
which  were  at  once  given  to  this  sophistry,  but  content 


2o8     Miracles  as  Credentials  of  a  Revelation, 

myself  with   the   words   of   John    Stuart   Mill;*   "All 

which  Hume  has  made  out,  and  this  he  must  be  con- 

/sidered  to  have  made  out,  is,  that  (at  least  in  the  im- 

>0  (perfect    state   of    our   knowledge   of    natural   agencies, 

^    which  leaves  it  always  possible  that  some  of  the  physical 

X     antecedents  have  been  hidden  from  us,)  no  evidence  can 

%L  prove  a  miracle  to  any  one  who  did  not  previously  believe 

'^  /  the  existence   of  a  being   or   beings  with   supernatural 

^  j  power ;  or  who  believes  himself  to  have  full  proof  that 

O  the  character  of  the  Being  whom  he  recognizes,  is  incon- 

^  j  sistent  with  his  having  seen  fit  to  interfere  on  the  occa- 

N^/  sion  in  question." 

^^  There  are  doubtless  some  in  my  audience  who  do  not 
-/.  believe  in  any  God  at  all.  To  them  of  course  miracles 
have  no  meaning :  if  they  saw  with  their  own  eyes 
multitudes  fed  with  a  few  loaves  and  fishes,  or  a  dead 
man  raised  to  life,  it  would  be  simply  an  unaccountable 
perturbation  in  the  movements  of  that  lifeless,  though 
self-originated  and  self- sustained,  machinery  of  the 
universe.  I  must  leave  such,  merely  asking  them  to 
listen  to  an  anecdote.  "  In  the  society  of  Baron  d'Hol- 
bach,  Diderot  proposed  one  day  to  nominate  an  ad- 
vocate of  God,  and  they  chose  Abbe  Galleani.  He 
seated  himself,  and  began  thus :  "  One  day,  at  Naples, 
a  man  of  the  Basilicate  took  in  our  presence  six  dice  in 
a  box,  and  betted  that  he  would  throw  six.  I  said  the 
chance  was  possible.  He  threw  it  a  second  time  imme- 
diately after :  I  said  the  same.  He  put  the  dice  into 
the  box  three,  four,  five  times,  and  always  threw  six. 
*  Sangue  di  Bacco,'  I  cried,  '  the  dice  are  loaded  ! ' 
and  so  they  were.  Philosophers,  when  I  consider  the 
order  of  nature  ever  renewed,  its  unchangeable  laws, 
*    System  of  Logic,  Book  III.,  c.  xxv.,  §  2. 


Miracles  as  Credentials  of  a  Revelatioit.    209 

its  revolutions  always  constant  in  infinite  variety,  that 
single  chance  which  preserves  the  universe  such  as  we 
see  it,  returning  incessantly  in  spite  of  a  hundred  million 
other  possible  chances  of  perturbation  and  destruction, 
I  cry,  *Assu]:edJtJ!Lature„jis.lQad£d.'  " 

Among  those  who  believe  that  "nature  is  loaded," 
we  sometimes  meet  with  persons  who  say  that  God 
must  always  have  acted  in  such  and  such  a  prescribed 
manner.  These  men  belong  to  the  Greek  period,  and 
like  some  of  the  old  theologians,  have  decided  the  ques- 
tion between  Fate  and  Jupiter,  in  favour  of  Fate,  or 
like  some  of  the  old  philosophers,  have  personified  Ne- 
cessity, and  then  fallen  before  the  phantom  of  their  own 
raising.  But  a  comparison  with  the  Greeks  is  too  com- 
plimentary ;  these  persons  remind  me  rather  of  that  fly, 
who,  sticking  head  downwards  on  the  beam  of  a  steam 
engine,  discoursed  with  quiet  confidence  to  a  coterie  of 
brother  flies,  about  the  limited  capacity  of  Watt. 

But  there  are  earnest  men  who,  without  saying  "  must  " 
or  "  must  not "  to  the  Supreme,  deny  to  man  the  right  of 
thinking  of  God's  procedure  in  nature  as  ever  in  any  way 
different  from  that  in  which  we  see  Him  ordinarily 
acting,  and  they  remind  us  that  He  is  the  unchangeable 
One,  and  that  with  Him  there  is  "no  variableness, 
neither  shadow  of  turning."  This  objection  may  be, 
and  often  is,  the  offspring  of  faith,  scientific  and  reli- 
gious j  and  it  certainly  merits  a  careful  and  serious 
reply. 

Will  any  one  who  feels  this  diflSculty  pass  with  me  from 
the  inanimate  to  the  animate  creation?  We  shall  find 
there  the  old  physical  forces  in  full  play,  but  regulated  and 
modified  in  their  action  according  to  new  physiological 
laws   unknown   in  the    mineral    kingdom,   but   equally 

14 


210    Miracles  as  Credeittials  of  a  Revelation. 

orderly,  equally  constant,  equally  divine.  We  shall 
'x  observe,  moreover,  the  indications  of  mind,  thought,  pur- 
[j  pose,  will.  Even  in  the  lower  animals  around  us,  our 
dogs,  horses,  or  singing  birds,  we  unhesitatingly  recog- 
nize a  freedom  of  choice,  and  a  spontaneousness  of  action ; 
we  are  pleased  or  angry  with  them,  we  punish  or  reward 
them.  If,  after  studying  the  inanimate  world,  we  turn  to 
consider  our  own  minds,  we  feel  still  more  that  we  have 
passed  from  the  domain  of  mechanism  to  that  of  motive, 
from  necessity  to  liberty.  We  find  ourselves  weighing 
reasons,  choosing  between  different  courses,  and  then  — 
altering  the  ordinary  course  of  nature.  Thus  I  am  free 
)^  to  lift  this  piece  of  paper,  or  to  let  it  lie  \  but  if  I  lift  it, 
my  will  has  counteracted  the  law  of  gravitation.  It  is 
true  I  can  influence  the  course  of  nature  only  within 
certain  limits ;  and  can  do  so  onl^  by  taking  advantage 
of  the  natural  forces  themselves;  it  is  true  also  that  I 
cannot  destroy  matter,  but  I  can  change  its  mode  of 
combination  ;  it  may  be  true,  likewise,  that  to  increase  or 
diminish  the  amount  of  energy  in  the  universe  is  beyond 
my  power,  but  I  can  and  do  transmute  one  force  into 
another,  and  vary  their  direction. 

In  close  analogy  to  this  perturbing  influence  of  our 
human  wills  is  what  may  be  conceived  to  take  place  if 
the  Supreme  Will  works  a  miracle.  It  is  not  necessary  to 
suppose  that  there  has  been  in  any  instance  either  the 
creation  or  destruction  of  matter  or  energy,  but  only  some 
new  distribution  of  force  f  yet  it  is  a  necessary  part  of 


(^ 


ro 


*  Of  course  this  remark  is  not  intended  to  exclude  the  idea  of  an 
original  act  of  creation.  In  this  connection  the  following  passage 
_of  the  great  Leibnitz  may  be  read  with  interest  :  '*  According  to 
my  opinion,  the  same  force  and  vigour  remains  always  in  the  world, 
and  only  passes  from  one  part  of  matter  to  another,  agreeably  to  the 


Miracles  as  Credentials  of  a  Revelation,     211 

the  conception  of  a  miracle  that  this  interference  with  the 
ordinary  course  of  nature  shall  be  such  as  man  is  unable 
to  effect. 

We  have  already  thought  of  the  universe  under  the 
simile  of  a  machine  ;  let  us  look  at  the  machines  of  men. 
One  day  I  stood  in  the  cathedral  of  Strasburg  before  the 
famous  clock,  and  watched  it  steadily  marking  the 
seconds,  minutes,  hours,  days  of  the  weeks,  days  of  the 
month,  phases  of  the  moon,  etc.,  when  suddenly  the 
figure  of  an  angel  turned  up  his  hour  glass,  another  struck 
four  times,  and  Death  struck  twelve  times  with  metal 
marrowbones  to  indicate  noon ;  various  figures  passed  in 
and  out  of  doorways,  the  twelve  apostles  marched  one  by 
one  before  the  figure  of  their  Master,  and  a  brass  cock  three 
times  flapped  its  wings,  threw  back  its  head,  and  crowed. 
All  this  was  of  course  as  much  a  part  of  the  designer's 
plan  as  the  ordinary  marking  of  the  time ;  and  in  like 
manner  there  is  no  reason  whatever  against  conceiving 
that  the  introduction  of  new  movements  in  the  great 
machine  of  the  universe  may  be  part  of  the  working  out 
of  the  great  Designer's  plan :  in  fact,  that  the  apparent 
suspension  of  a  law  of  nature  is  only  the  coming  into 
operation  of  a  higher  law. 

I  am  not,  however,  content  to  speak  of  nature  as  a 
machine  invented,  made,  and  set  going  by  God.  The 
analogy  may  perhaps  hold  good  so  far,  but  then  it  breaks 
dowTi ;  for  our  machines  are  sustained  in  action  by  the 
physical  forces  themselves,  and  so  they  cannot  serve  as 

laws  of  nature  and  the  beautiful  pre-established  order.  And  I  hold 
that  when  God  works  miracles,  He  does  not  do  it  in  order  to  supply 
the  wants  of  nature,  but  those  of  grace.  Whoever  thinks  otherwise 
must  needs  have  a  very  mean  notion  of  the  wisdom  and  power  of 
God." 


U^J 


212    Miracles  as  Credentials  of  a  Revelation. 

an  explanation  of  the  orderly  action  of  these  forces.  It 
seems  to  me  more  philosophical  to  conceive  of  the 
material  universe  as  one  expression  of  the  Divine 
thought,  the  orderly  action  of  the  Supreme  will ;  and 
thus  the  "  laws  of  nature  "  become  simply  the  methods 
in  which  He  chooses  to  act. 

There  is  a  similar,  though  of  course  inferior,  order  in 
the  actions  of  men.  I  watch  my  neighbour  for  several 
days,  and  see  that  every  morning,  whether  fine  or  wet,  he 
leaves  home  for  the  city,  and  that  he  returns  again  in  the 
jjyevening.  This  is  the  first  law  at  which  I  arrive.  But 
_.  -after  a  few  days  I  find  there  is  a  break  of  a  day ;  this 
occurs  again  shortly  afterwards  ;  and  presently  I  have  to 
correct  my  idea  of  the  law  of  his  movements,  for  I  find  it 
to  be  this  : — for  six  days  consecutively  he  goes  to  work, 
but  not  on  the  seventh  day.  And  so  the  summer  and 
autumn  pass,  and  the  winter  comes  on,  and  I  am  gaining 
great  confidence  in  the  formula  by  which  I  express  my 
neighbour's  movements,  when  one  morning  I  find  the 
course  of  six  days  is  broken.  I  discover,  however,  a  reason 
for  this :  Christmas  is  come,  and  among  the  blessings  it 
brings  is  the  release  from  daily  toil.  Well,  I  must  in- 
terpolate this  annual  festival  in  my  formula.  Again  the 
order  of  my  neighbour's  procedure  seems  perfect,  when 
suddenly  there  is  an  unexpected  break,  and  on  inquiry 
I  learn  that  one  of  his  family  is  ill :  new  circumstances 
have  called  in  action  another  motive,  and  anxious  love 
has  broken  the  order  of  his  daily  life. 

Just  so  in  the  procedure  of  God  it  is  the  occurrence  of 
new,  though  perhaps  foreseen,  circumstances  which  sup- 
plies the  motive  for  the  miracle.  The  Christian  theory- 
is,  not  that  a  miracle  is  an  effect  without  a  cause,  but 


Miracles  as  Credentials  of  a  Revelation,    213 

the  consequence  of  the  coming  in  of  a  new  cause.''"     I 
proceed  to  explain  what  this  new  cause  is. 

Among   the   few   points   on  which   Christians,  Jews, 
Mahometans,    Buddhists,     Sun-worshippers,     Brahmins,  //  Q^ 
Fetish-worshippers,  Deists  and  Secularists  are  all  agreed,  v_  ^  j 
is   this, — men   are   not  .as  good   or  as   happy  as  they, 
might   be.     There   is   found   everywhere  a  longing  for     ^ 
something  better,  some  remedy  for  evil,  or,  at  any  rate, 
some  rehef  from  suffering  and  sorrow.     Among  the  com- 
monest beliefs  of  man  is  that  in  spiritual  beings,  and  in  (^  ;^ 
the  existence  of  the  soul  after  death ;  and  among  his 
strongest   instincts   are  those    of  prayer    and  worship. 
Sometimes  this  need  expresses  itself  in'  confident  appeals 
to  some  deity ;  at  other  times  it  cannot  advance  beyond 
that  which  the  poet  laureate  describes  : 

"So  runs  my  dream  :  but  what  am  I  ? 

An  infant  crying  in  the  night, 

An  infant  crying  for  the  light, 

And  with  no  language  but  a  cry." 


But,  friends,  when  the  baby  cries,  the  mother's  arms  are 
stretched  forth  in  the  darkness  to  soothe  its  fears  or  to 
supply  its  needs ;  and  so  men  have  beHeved  that  when 
they  cried,  a  heavenly  Father  has  responded  to  their  cry, 
and  come  to  their  help. 

Yet  is  it  true?  Does  the  Almighty  really  care  for 
men  ?  May  it  not  be  that  this  religious  instinct,  unlike 
other  instincts,  is  doomed  to  perpetual  disappointment  ? 

Or,  granting  that  He  may  have  broken  the  silence,  in 
what  way  has  He  spoken  ?  Has  He  revealed  Himself 
solely  to  the  individual  inquirer,  or  has  He  sent  a 
message  to  a  particular  race  of  men,  or  to  the   whole 

*  Vide  T.  Brown,  Mill,  Bushnell,  Duke  of  Argyll,  Warington,  etc 


K 


c^xi 


&) 


214    Miracles  as  Credentials  of  a  Revelation. 

human  family  ?  Many  men  have  put  in  their  claims  as 
His  messengers ;  but  there  are  lunatics  and  fanatics 
abroad,  not  to  speak  of  designing  impostors,  and  we  do 
well  to  ask  the  credentials  of  every  professed  ambassador 
from  the  court  of  heaven.  Indeed,  the  divergence  of 
their  statements  obliges  us  to  do  so.  Which  religion  are 
we  to  follow  ?  Are  we  to  fall  back  on  ancient  tradition, 
or  rely  on  modern  utterances  ?  Are  we  to  listen  to  a 
book  or  a  priest  ?  If  a  book,  shall  it  be  the  Bible,  or 
the  Vedas,  the  Zendavesta,  or  the  Koran  ?  If  a  priest, 
which  deity  of  the  pantheon  shall  he  represent?  Are 
we  to  believe,  with  the  Christian  Scriptures,  that  God 
Himself  is  "waiting  to  be  gracious,"  or  are  we  required 
to  propitiate  His  favour  as  other  religions  teach  ?  And 
when  we  come  to  practical  morality,  are  we  to  guide  our 
lives  by  the  teaching  of  Buddha,  Confucius,  or  Jesus  of 
Nazareth  ? 

It  is  no  part  of  my  intention  to  speculate  on  the 
various  ways  in  which  the  Supreme  Being  might  have 
confirmed  His  message  either  to  the  individual  recipient, 
or  to  others  ;  "  His  ways  are  higher  than  our  ways ;  "  but 
I  think  that  there  are  two  conclusions  which  will  be 
generally  accepted  by  those  who  have  given  any  atten- 
tion to  the  subject.  First,  that  if  a  revelation  is  given, 
there  are  good  reasons  why  some  authentication  should 
be  given  with  it.  Secondly,  that  if  He  should  choose  to 
accompany  the  revelation  of  His  will  with  some  departure 
from  the  ordinary  course  of  nature,  it  would  be  an 
effective  way  of  accomplishing  the  purpose.  There 
would,  indeed,  be  certain  advantages  attending  such  a 
mode  of  attestation  :  it  would  attract  and  rivet  attention ; 
it  would  be  comprehensible  by  all,  the  ignorant  as  well 
as  the  learned,  the  debased  as  well  as  the  pure  in  heart  j 


Miracles  as  Credentials  of  a  Revelation.     215 

and  there  would  be  a  certain  congruity  between  the 
message  and  the  seal ;  for  a  special  revelation  of  Himself 
is  a  departure  from  God's  ordinary  course  of  action,  and 
partakes  itself  of  the  nature  of  miracle. 

It  is,  also,  no  part  of  my  intention  to  consider  what  ^r—^^ 
kind  of  evidence  has  been  offered  by  the  various  religions  \/0 
in  the  world,  or  whether,  indeed,  they  have  offered  any 
evidence.  There  is  one  religion  with  which  we  are 
specially  interested  :  it  is  that  which,  whether  true  or 
false,  is  professed  by  the  most  civiUzed  nations,  and 
believed  by  many  of  our  greatest  thinkers;  one  which 
powerfully  influences  modern  thought,  and  affects  us  all, 
whether  we  accept  it  or  not.  This  religion  has  a  long 
history,  which  is  inextricably  intertwined  with  narratives 
of  miracles  ;*  and  I  propose  glancing,  with  you,  at  these 
narratives,  and  observing  what  purpose  is  assigned  to 
such  departures  from  the  ordinary  course  of  nature.  It 
need  make  no  difference  to  our  inquiry  whether  we 
believe  them  to  be  literally  true,  or  coloured  exaggera- 
tions of  real  events,  or  fabulous  as  fairy  tales  :  what 
we  have  to  find  out  is  the  motive  assigned  for  their 
performance ;  and  then  we  have  to  judge  for  ourselves 
whether  this  motive  is  sufficient  to  render  credible  a 
departure  from  the  ordinary  course  of  God's  proceedings 
in  nature. 

Fortunately,  in  regard  both  to  ancient  Judaism  and 
to  Christianity,  which  was  developed  from  it,  we  have 
documentary  evidence ;  and  we  may  fairly  accept  these 

*  There  are  three  Hebrew  and  three  Greek  words  principally 
employed  in  the  Bible,  which  are  rendered  in  our  English  version 
by  "miracles,"  "marvellous  works,"  "wonders,"  and  "signs;" 
terms  which  are  applied  to  the  same  events,  regarded,  however,  from 
different  points  of  view. 


2 1 6    Miracles  as  Credentials  of  a  Revelation. 

writings  as  representing  the  opinions  of   the  founders 
and  early  teachers  of  the  two  systems. 

The  sacred  books  of  the  Jews  commence  with  some 
fragmentary  records  which  profess  to  carry  the  history  ot 
man  up  to  the  earHest  period.  These  are  followed  by 
a  tolerably  consecutive  history  of  their  nation  from  the 
time  of  their  great  progenitor,  Abraham.  At  first,  it  is 
stated,  the  one  true  God  spoke  to  this  Eastern  sheikh 
and  his  descendants,  but  no  attestation  was  given  beyond 
the  family  itself,  as  indeed  it  was  not  needed.  When, 
however,  the  Hebrews  were  to  be  delivered  from  their 
slavery  in  Egypt,  and  to  be  raised  into  a  nation,  we  read 
of  a  marvellous  outburst  of  miraculous  power,  all  in 
connection  with  their  great  leader  and  lawgiver,  Moses. 
He  is  first  convinced  of  his  Divine  commision  by  means 
of  a  miracle  f  and  he  is  empowered  to  perform  miracles 
in  order  to  convince  others  jt  then  the  relative  control 
over  the  forces  of  nature  possessed  by  the  God  of  the 
Hebrews  and  the  Gods  of  Egypt  is  submitted  to  the 
arbitrament  ot  miracle; J  a  series  of  wonders  are 
wrought  in  order  to  deliver  the  chosen  people  from 
the  house  of  bondage,  to  preserve  them  in  their  long 
pilgrimage  through  the  Arabian  desert,  and  to  convince 
their  degraded  minds  that  Jehovah  was  indeed  the  God, 
and  that  the  statutes  and  commandments  which  He  gave 
through  His  servant  Moses  were  to  be  kept.§  The 
Jewish  history  proceeds  to  describe  the  invasion  and  the 
gradual  subjugation  of  Canaan,  and  still  we  meet  with 
miracle  apparently  to  secure  the  allegiance  to  God  of 
that  people  who  were  the  repositories  of  His  revealed 
law.     Sometimes,   as  in  the  case  of  Gideon,  miracles 

*  Exod.  iii.  %  Exod.  v.,  et  seq.-y  see  vii.  9. 

f  Exod.  iv.  §  Deut.  iv.  32-40. 


Miracles  as  Credejttials  of  a  Revelation,    2 1 7 

were  wrought  first  to  fortify  the  faith  of  a  hesitating 
leader,  and  then  to  show  the  people  that  it  was  really  "  the 
sword  of  the  Lord  "  that  gained  the  victory  over  the  hosts 
of  the  Midianites.*  We  read  at  length  of  the  tribes  being 
welded  into  a  nation  living  in  tolerable  security,  and  wor- 
shipping the  Lord;  there  is  no  rival  deity,  and  no  fresh  reve- 
lation, though  Divine  poems  are  composed  and  sung,  and 
there  are  few  or  no  miracles.  But  presently  the  kingdom 
is  rent  in  two  ;  the  southern  portion  retains  the  worship 
of  Jehovah,  at  least  in  outward  form ;  there  arise  many 
prophets,  but  there  is  no  need  of  confirming  their  testi- 
mony by  miracles ;  only  towards  the  close  of  the  kingdom 
of  Judah  we  meet  with  a  miraculous  deliverance  from  an 
invading  foe,  and  a  sign  given  to  confirm  the  monarch's 
hope.t  In  the  northern  kingdom,  however,  it  was  far 
otherwise :  for  pofitical  reasons  Jeroboam  set  up  an 
idolatrous  worship  of  the  true  God  within  his  own 
dominions,  and  instantly  a  prophet  is  sent  to  denounce 
the  sacrilege,  with  the  credentials  of  a  double  sign.^ 
Half  a  century  later  King  Ahab,  through  his  marriage 
with  Jezebel,  introduced  the  worship  of  Baal,  and  im- 
mediately a  mighty  prophet,  Elijah  the  Tishbite,  pro- 
claims a  drought  in.  the  name  of  the  Lord  God  of 
Israel,  and  soon  on  the  summit  of  Carmel  the  gauntlet 
is  thrown  down,  and  the  rival  claims  of  Jehovah  and 
Baal  are  decided  by  the  wager  of  battle.  §  But  indeed 
the  whole  history  of  this  great  reformer  of  Israel,  and 
his  successor,  Elisha,  is  a  series  of  miraculous  events. 
When  the  Jews  were  carried  captive  to  Babylon,  we  meet 
the  worshippers  of  the  Lord  face  to  face  with  triumphant 
heathenism,  the  prophets  who  lived  there  among  their 

*  Judges  vi.  vii.  f  2  Kings  xix.  xx.     Observe  xix.  irg. 

X  I  Kings  xiii.  §  i  Kings  xviii. 


2i8    Miracles  as  Credentials  of  a  Revelation, 

fellow-countrymen — like  their  predecessors — did  no  mira- 
cle j  but  there  were  pious  Jews  whose  home  was  in  the 
heathen  court,  and  one  who  occupied  a  most  exalted 
position,  and  retained  it  through  changes  of  dynasty. 
On  behalf  of  these,  great  signs  and  wonders  were  wrought, 
so  that  both  Nebuchadnezzar  and  Darius  were  convinced 
that  the  God  of  Daniel  was  "the  King  of  heaven,"  "the 
living  God,"  and  they  declared  it  in  formal  decrees.* 
But  the  Jews  were  restored  to  their  land ;  they  set  their 
faces  sternly  against  idolatry,  though  such  resistance 
brought  terrible  persecutions  upon  them.  For  four  cen- 
turies there  arose  no  prophet,  and  the  pious  leaders 
made  no  pretentions  to  miraculous  power. 

Then  there  was  the  dawn  of  a  brighter  day.  John 
the  Baptist  called  the  people  to  repentance,  and  pointed 
to  "the  Lamb  of  God,"  but  it  was  not  to  himself  that 
the  new  revelation  was  entrusted,  and  "John  did  no 
miracle."  But  Jesus,  to  whom  he  pointed,  is  described  in 
all  the  extant  biographies,  as  living  a  life  superhuman 
from  its  commencement  to  its  close  upon  this  earth,  ever 
surrounded  with  marvellous  events,  saying  marvellous 
words,  and  doing  marvellous  deeds.  Winds  and  water 
obey  Him,  substances  change  their  nature  or  their 
quantity  at  His  command,  and  innumerable  forms  of 
human  suffering — leprosy  and  fever,  paralysis  and  atrophy, 
lunacy  and  demoniacal  possession,  blindness  and  dumb- 
ness, even  death  itself— are  vanquished  by  His  word.t 
This,  we  are  told,  attracts  the  attention  of  the  populace 
to  the  great  Teacher,  and  his  claims  to  the  Messiahship 
are  freely  recognized  by  the  brave  Galileans  who  flock 
round  Him  from  the  cities  of  the  lake.  Yet  we  must  not 
imagine  that  this  was  the  sole  purpose  of  His  miracles ; 
*  Dan.  iv.,  vi.  t  The  four  Gospels  throughout. 


Miracles  as  Credentials  of  a  Revelation.    219 

many  of  them  were  acted  parables ;  and  the  example  of 
His  benevolence,  caught  up  by  the  Christian  Church, 
has  laid  the  foundation  of  every  hospital,  and  started 
almost  every  deed  of  self-denying  charity  in  later  ages. 
In  Jerusalem  we  read  of  His  miracles  riveting  attention, 
and  exciting  controversy.  A  ruler  of  the  Jews  says  to 
Him  in  early  days,  "  Rabbi,  we  know  that  Thou  art  a 
Teacher  come  from  God;  for  no  man  can  do  these 
miracles  that  Thou  doest,  except  God  be  with  him  ; " 
and  afterwards  a  man  born  bhnd,  but  restored  to  sight, 
uses  the  same  argument,  though  he  puts  it  more  bluntly. 
We  find  Jesus  frequently  appealing  to  these  mighty 
works  as  bearing  witness  that  the  Father  has  sent  Him  : 
and  after  the  raising  of  Lazarus  from  the  dead  had  con- 
vinced very  many,  the  chief  priests  call  together  the 
Sanhedrim  to  discuss  the  serious  question,  "What  do 
we  ?  for  this  man  doeth  many  miracles.  If  we  let  Him 
thus  alone,  all  men  will  believe  on  Him."*  And  this 
was  the  cause  of  His  judicial  murder. 

A  few  days  after  His  ascension,  we  meet  with  His 
apostles  preaching  in  this  strain:  "Ye  men  of  Israel, 
hear  these  words  \  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  a  man  approved  of 
God  among  you  by  miracles,  and  wonders,  and  signs, 
which  God  did  by  Him  in  the  midst  of  you,  as  ye  your- 
selves also  know."  But  the  Master  had  previously  con- 
ferred on  His  disciples  the  power  of  working  miracles,  and 
when  His  personal  presence  was  taken  away,  they  con- 
tinue to  challenge  attention  to  their  statements  by  doing 
wonderful  works. t     Thus,  to  single  out  Paul,  we  read  of 

*  Compare  John  iii.  2  ;  v.  36  ;  vii.  31  ;  ix.  16,  30,  33  ;  x.  37,  38; 
xi.  47,  48  ;  xii,  10,  II,  18,  19;  xv.  24. 

+  Compare  Acts  ii.  6-1 1,  43  ;  iii. ;  v.  12-16  ;  vi.  8 ;  Heb.  ii.  4; 
I  Cor.  xii.  10,  28,  29. 


220    Miracles  as  Credejitials  of  a  Revelation. 

him  performing  miracles  at  Cyprus,  Iconium,  Lystra, 
Philippi,  Ephesus,  Troas,  and  Melita,  and  he  appeals  to 
his  possession  of  this  power  in  his  letters  to  the  Co- 
rinthians, the  Galatians,  and  the  Romans,"*  and  that  with 
express  reference  to  the  later  developments  of  Christian 
doctrine. 

I  am  not  assuming  the  reality  of  these  miracles,  but 
merely  inquiring  what  was  taught  and  believed.  The 
records  may  in  some  cases  have  been  written  long  after 
the  events  they  profess  to  describe,  but  in  regard  to 
Christ  there  can  be  no  doubt  whatever  that  His  personal 
friends  attributed  this  superhuman  character  and  power 
to  Him  ;  the  superhuman  element  is  no  late  addition  to 
the  gospel  story,  it  is  the  very  substratum,  the  very 
texture  of  the  story  itself,  an  essential  part  of  the  original 
tradition,!  for  maintaining  which  they  suffered  the  great- 
est opprobrium  and  the  severest  persecutions. 

From  the  sketch  we  have  just  made  it  will  be  seen 
\hat  the  miracles  of  the  Bible  group  themselves  princi- 
pally round  three  great  personages,  Moses,  Elijah,  Jesus, 
and  that  in  each  of  the  three  cases  the  wonder-working 
power  is  continued  for  awhile  to  their  followers.  There 
is  a  great  difference  certainly  between  the  three  :  for 
Moses  and  Elijah  are  represented  as  performing  their 
miracles  as  servants  of  the  Most  High,  Jesus  Christ  as 
a  son ;  they  give  their  commands  to  nature  in  the  name 
of  the  Lord,  He  in  His  own  name.  We  are  led  to 
understand  that  each  of  these  men  was  in  very  special 
communion  with  God;  they  were  large-souled  men,  in 
whom  dwelt  so  much  of  the  Spirit  of  God  that  His 
power  was   at   their  disposal   in  a  way  far  above  that 

*  2  Cor.  xii.  12  ;  Gal.  iii.  5  ;  Rom.  xv.  18,  19. 
+  See  St.  Luke's  preface  to  his  Gospel. 


Miracles  as  Credentials  of  a  Revelation.    22  x 

granted  to  their  fellows.  The  great  mission  of  Moses 
was  to  proclaim  the  Law,  and  to  form  the  nation  that 
was  to  be  the  guardian  of  the  Law ;  the  great  mission  of 
Elijah  was  to  bring  back  the  kingdom  of  Israel  to  its 
allegiance  to  Jehovah  ;  the  greater  mission  of  Jesus  was  ' 
to  reveal  the  Father,  to  found  the  kingdom  of  heaven, 
and  to  make  that  great  sacrifice  which  should  reconcile 
man  to  God.  We  have  seen  that  each  of  these,  as 
well  as  their  followers,  appealed  to  their  mighty  works  as 
seals  of  God's  approval.  Were  not  the  objects  worthy 
of  the  attestation  ? 

My  own  deduction,  from  the  study  of  the  Bible  and 
from  other  things,  is  this  :  Many  imperfect  and  erroneous 
answers  have  been  given  to  the  cry  of  sinfal,  suffering 
humanity ;  but  God,  in  love  to  man,  has  gradually  made 
known  His  true  answer.  The  way  which  He  has  chosen 
for  doing  this  is  to  fill  certain  men  more  or  less  with  His 
own  Spirit,*  and  then  to  send  them  as  ambassadors  to 
their  fellow-men;  and  just  as  ambassadors  from  an 
earthly  potentate  are  accredited  by  some  seal  or  signa- 
ture from  the  royal  hand,  so  do  these  representatives  of 
Heaven  (especially  where  their  mission  was  contested) 
bring  with  them  signs  of  superhuman  power.  These  are 
not  their  only,  perhaps  not  their  best,  credentials ;  but 
some  credentials  are  absolutely  necessary,  if  our  faith  is 
to  be  grounded  on  reason.  This  removes  from  my  mind 
all  a  priori  difficulty  about  miracles,  and  my  scientific  A 
training  leads  me  to  place  the  highest  value  on  any  well 
authenticated  departures  from  the  ordinary  course  of 
nature,  in  fact  a  higher  value  than  could  have  been 
assigned  to  them  in  former  days. 

*  Of  Christ  it  is  written,  **  God  giveth  not  the  Spirit  by  measure 
unto  Him." 


222    Miracles  as  Credentials  of  a  Revelation, 

But  my  conclusion  will  be  challenged,  and  that  from 
different  quarters. 

It  will  probably  be  contended  that  many  of  the 
miracles  recorded  in  the  Bible  are  trivial,  and  unworthy 
X  of  so  high  a  purpose.  Yes,  some  are  trivial,  if  we  take 
them  by  themselves;  but  not  so  if  we  take  them  as 
parts  of  a  whole  system.  We  must  not,  in  fact,  look 
upon  every  miracle  as  a  separate  credential,  but  rather 
as  an  outcome  of  that  superhuman  power  with  which  the 
prophet  was  invested ;  often  rather  as  a  part  of  the  reve- 
lation itself,  a  lesson  in  the  care  of  God  for  man. 

It  may  also  be  affirmed  that  some  of  the  miracles  are 
grotesque,  even  absurd.  Yes,  there  are  miracles  which 
V  appear  so,  but  only,  I  think,  to  those  who  have  never 
taken  the  trouble  to  transport  themselves  in  imagination 
to  the  distant  period  and  different  state  of  civilization, 
and  to  make  themselves  familiar  with  all  the  circum- 
stances of  the  case. 

I  shall  be  asked  too.  If  a  man  does  a  miracle,  are  we 
bound  to  believe  everything  he  says  ?  To  this  I  answer, 
If  a  man  brings  the  signature  of  a  foreign  prince,  are  we 
to  believe  everything  he  says  ?  We  are  to  accept  as 
authentic  what  his  credentials  are  designed  to  attest,  but 
not  necessarily  anything  more.  Yet  in  the  case  of  God's 
ambassadors,  we  may  also  regard  their  credentials  as  high 
certificates  of  character.  Still  I  shall  be  asked.  Are  there 
^1  not  such  things  as  false  miracles  ?  Assuredly  there  are. 
"  Let  me  give  one  instance  from  the  history  of  the  Magi, 
when  their  power  was  slipping  away.  A  priest  of  the 
name  of  Adurabad  Mabrasphant,  in  the  year  241,  offered 
to  submit  to  the  fiery  ordeal ;  he  proposed  that  eighteen 
pounds  of  melted  copper  glowing  from  the  furnace  should 
be  poured  upon  his  body,  on  condition  that  if  he  were 


Miracles  as  Credentials  of  a  Revelation.     223 

unhurt  the  unbeUevers  should  yield  to  so  great  a  miracle. 
The  trial  was  attended  with  such  complete  success,  that 
it  is  said  his  opponents  were  all  brought  back  to  the  faith  of  X, 
their  ancestors.  Now  there  was  really  nothing  miraculous 
in  this.  Molten  metal,  if  sufficiently  hot,  does  not  come 
into  contact  with  a  moist  body ;  and  it  was  once  part  of  the 
secret  knowledge  of  the  masonic  guilds  of  the  middle  ages 
that  the  hand  might  be  dipped  with  impunity  into  melted 
lead.  I  myself  have  often  passed  my  fingers  through  it,  and 
even  through  melted  iron  and  gold.  The  feats  of  honest  jug- 
glery or  the  newest  discoveries  of  science,  may  of  course  at 
any  time  be  pressed  into  the  wretched  service  of  religious,  ^ 
or  rather  irreligious  imposture ;  and  this  shows  that  miracles, 
to  be  of  value  as  credentials,  must  be  unmistakably  beyond 
the  sphere  of  man's  unaided  power  at  the  time,  and  that  their 
value  is  greatly  enhanced  if  they  are  of  various  kinds  grouped 
together,  as  in  each  of  the  three  great  epochs  of  miracles 
mentioned  above.  But  the  question  will  still  be  pushed. 
If  an  act  is  clearly  superhuman,  is  it  necessarily  divine  ? 
There  are  passages  of  Scripture  which  at  first  sight  suggest 
the  idea  of  real  miracles  in  support  of  falsehood ;  and 
there  are  said  to  be  some  fairly  authenticated  stories  of 
miracles  in  attestation  of  Roman  Catholic  doctrines  or  X 
Mormon  tenets;  but  in  my  opinion  these  passages  of 
Scripture  refer  always  to  false  miracles,  forged  credentials, 
like  that  of  Adurabad  Mabrasphant,  and  those  miraculous 
narratives  have  never  come  before  me  with  anything 
approaching  the  weight  of  testimony  possessed  by  the 
gospel  narratives,  or  that  which  is  perhaps  the  best 
authenticated  of  all  events  in  past  history,  the  resurrection 
of  Christ.  I  am  fully  aware  that  in  this  view  of  the 
authority  of  miracles  I  differ  from  some  of  the  most 
thoughtful  of  my  Christian  brethren ;  still  my  faith  in  the 


*  224    Miracles  as  Credentials  of  a  Revelatio7t. 

uniformity  of  natural  laws,  and  in  God,  render  it  almost 
inconceivable  to  me  that  He  should  ever  turn  aside  from 
the  ordinary  course  of  His  procedure  at  the  dictation  of 
falsehood.* 

I  wish  it,  however,  to  be  distinctly  understood  that  I  do 
not  exalt  the  testimony  of  miracles  above  that  of  other 
evidences  of  Christianity.  The  relative  value  of  diiferent 
kinds  of  evidence  will  change  in  process  of  time,  and  will 
certainly  be  very  differently  estimated  by  different  minds. 
I  have  considered  it  my  special  duty  as  a  scientific  man, 
to  point  out  how  the  recent  progi-ess  of  the  physical 
sciences,  by  completely  overthrowing  the  rule  of  chance 
or  caprice^,  has  shown  that  the  origin  of  miracles  must  be 
sought  in  the  will  of  God,  and  that  they  may  take  their 
place  in  the  fore-determined  order  of  the  universe,  but 
only  on  condition  of  an  adequate  motive  being  assigned. 
Such  a  motive  the  Christian  religion  does  assign. 

Many  will  seek  the  confirmation  of  their  faith  rather  in 
the  fulfilment  of  prophecy,  the  victories  of  Christ  in  the 
individual  soul  or  in  the  world  at  large,  the  wonderful 
adaptation  of  His  religion  to  produce  a  noble  and  holy 
/life,  or  the  self-evidencing  power  of  truth.  Probably  if 
\)ur  minds  and  consciences  were  stainless,  truth,  when 
once  presented  to  us,  would,  like  the  Light  of  the  world, 
need  no  credentials ;  but  we  may  well  be  thankful  that 
God  has  attested  His  revelation  by  proofs  adapted  to  the 
various  minds  of  men. 

*  For  an  elaborate  examination  of  this  question  see  Dr.  Ward- 
law's  work  *'  On  Miracles;"  for  the  opposite  view  see  Archbishop 
Trench's  "  Notes  on  the  Miracles  of  our  Lord." 


THE    HISTORICAL   EVIDENCE    OF  THE 
RESURRECTION  OF  JESUS  CHRIST. 

BY   THE 

REV.   C.   A.   ROW,   M.A., 

AUTHOR  OF  "  THE   NATURE  AND  EXTENT  OF  DIVINE  INSPIRATION,  '       THE  JESUS 

OF  THE  EVANGELISTS,"    "  THE   MORAL   TEACHING  OF   THB 

NEW   TESTAMENT,"   ETC. 


IS 


The  Historical  Evidence  of  the  Resur- 
rection of  yesus  Christ. 


THE  writers  of  the  New  Testament  have  directly- 
staked  the  truth  of  Christianity  on  the  actual 
performance  of  a  single  miracle,  the  Resurrection  of 
Jesus  Christ.  If  this  cannot  be  established  as  an  histo- 
rical fact,  it  is  a  mere  useless  waste  of  time  and  trouble 
to  attack  any  other  of  the  miracles  of  the  Bible,  or  to 
attempt  to  prove  their  truth.  If  Jesus  Christ  did  not 
rise  from  the  dead,  all  the  other  miracles  in  the  New 
Testament  would  not  avail  to  prove  that  Christianity  is 
a  Divine  revelation.  If  He  did,  this  one  alone  would 
prove  it,  and  support  the  weight  of  all  the  rest.  As, 
then,  this  miracle  forms  the  very  key  of  the  Christian 
position,  I  challenge  unbelievers  to  join  issue  on  its  truth 
or  falsehood. 

I  shall  treat  this  subject  precisely  as  I  would  any 
point  of  secular  history.  I  shall  not  ask  you  to  believe 
that  the  New  Testament  is  inspired.  I  shall  make  use 
of  the  Gospels  as  I  would  any  other  memoirs.  I  shall 
claim  no  other  authority  for  the  letters  of  St.  Paul  than 
I  would  for  the  letters  of  Cicero.     You  on  your  part 


228  The  Historical  Evidence  of  the 

must  not  object  that  miracles  are  impossible ;  for, 
whether  they  are,  or  are  not,  is  a  philosophical  question 
which  lies  beyond  the  regions  of  historical  enquiry.  In 
this  lecture  I  can  only  deal  with  historical  evidence. 

I  am  now"  going  to  prove  that  the  truth  of  the  Resur- 
rection of  Jesus  Christ  rests  on  the  highest  form  of 
historical  evidence.  In  doing  so  I  shall  take  for  granted 
that  no  one  who  reads  this  lecture  will  deny  the  truth  of 
certain  y^<:/j-,  which  all  the  learned  unbelievers  of  Europe 
who  have  studied  this  question  admit  to  be  facts.  To 
attempt  to  prove  what  they  allow  to  be  true  would  be 
pure  waste  of  time.  I  shall  take  it  for  granted  that  what 
such  men  as  Strauss,  Renan,  Baur  and  the  whole 
lubingen  School  admit,  they  will  not  deny.  I  shall 
assume  therefore, 

I  St.  That  Jesus  Christ  existed;  that  He  collected 
round  Him  a  body  of  followers,  who  believed  in  Him  as 
the  Messiah ;  and  that  He  was  crucified  by  the  authority 
of  the  Roman  government. 

2nd.  That  the  first  three  Gospels  were  published,  in 
the  form  in  which  we  now  read  them,  not  later  than 
A.D.  no;  and  that  one  of  thein  was  composed  at  least 
ten  years  earlier.  ^ 

3rd.  That  the  four  most  important  letters  of  St.  Paul, 
viz.,  that  to  the  Romans,  the  two  to  the  Corinthians,  and 
that  to  the  Galations,  were  unquestionably  written  by  St. 
Paul  himself;  and  that  the  latest  of  them  cannot  have 
been  written  at  a  later  date  than  twenty-eight  years  after 
the  crucifixion. 

4th.  That  before  the  end  of  the  first  century,  or  less  than 
seventy  years  after  the  crucifixion.  Christian  churches  were 
to  be  found  in  all  the  great  cities  of  the  Roman  Empire. 

If  any  unbeliever  refuses  to  concede  these    points, 


Resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ.  229 

I  appeal  from  his  judgment  to  that  of  all  the  eminent 
unbelievers  of  modern  Europe,  and  say,  Do  not  igno- 
rantly  deny  as  historical  facts  what  all  your  own  great 
men  affirm  to  have  been  so. 

The  first  point  in  my  proof  is,  that  the  Christian 
Church  has  existed  as  a  visible  institution,  without  a 
single  break  in  its  continuity,  for  a  period  of  more  than 
eighteen  centuries,  and  that  it  can  be  traced  up  to  the 
date  which  is  assigned  to  its  origin,  by  the  most  un- 
questionable historical  evidence.  The  Christian  Church 
asserts,  and  ever  has  asserted,  that  the  cause  of  its 
renewed  existence,  after  the  death  of  its  founder,  was 
not  the  belief  in  a  dogma  or  a  doctrine,  but  in  a  fact, 
that  Jesus  Christ  rose  again  from  the  dead. 

Now,  observe  the  importance  of  the  fact  that  the 
Christian  Church  is,  and  ever  has  been,  a  visible  com- 
munity. All  communities  must  have  had  an  origin  of 
some  kind.  The  supposed  designs  of  its  founder  were 
cut  short  by  His  being  executed  by  the  authority  of  the 
Roman  Government.  Yet  it  is  certain  that  the  institu- 
tion was  set  agoing  again  after  His  death.  The  belief 
in  the  resurrection  formed  the  ground  of  the  renewed  life 
of  the  community.  The  Christian  Church  asserts  in  all 
its  documents,  that  the  sole  cause  of  its  renewed  life  was 
not  that  His  followers  found  a  new  leader ;  'but  that  ihey 
believed  that  Jesus  Christ  rose  from  the  dead. 

But  observe  further;  if  Jesus  Christ  rose  from  the 
dead,  or  his  followers  were  firmly  persuaded  that  he  did 
so,  this  forms  a  rational  account  of  the  origin  of  this 
great  institution.  If  the  fact  is  denied,  unbelievers  are 
bound  to  give  a  rational  account  of  its  origin.  Wc 
affirm  that  no  other  theory  can  account  for  it. 

Let  me  illustrate  the  importance  of  the  calling  into 


230  The  Historical  Evidence  of  tke 

existence  of  a  great  historical  institution,  and  its  con- 
tinuous life,  as  a  proof  of  a  fact.  Take  the  instance  of 
Mahomedanism.  Like  the  Christian  Church,  the  Church 
of  Mahomet  has  existed  as  a  visible  community  since  the 
seventh  century.  It  claims  to  owe  its  origin  to  the 
peaceful  preaching  of  Mahomet  at  Mecca,  followed  by 
his  being  acknowledged  as  prophet  and  sovereign  at 
Medina.  The  facts  as  reported  by  his  followers  are 
adequate  accounts  of  its  origin,  and  the  continuous 
existence  of  the  Mahomedan  Church,  from  the  time 
of  its  foundation  to  the  present  day,  affords  the  strongest 
possible  corroboration  to  the  truth  of  the  fact,  as  handed 
down  by  its  first  historians,  that  its  institution  was  due  to 
Mahomet,  and  that  certain  events  in  his  life  were  the 
causes  of  its  existence.  These  events  are  adequate  and 
philosophical  accounts  of  it. 

Unbelievers  have  adopted  a  summary  way  ot  disposing 
of  the  entire  question  of  the  historical  character  of  Chris- 
tianity. They  tell  us  that  the  three  first  Gospels  consist  of 
a  bundle  of  myths  and  legends,  united  with  a  few  grains 
of  historic  truth,  which  were  slowly  and  gradually  elabo- 
rated between  a.d.  30  and  a.d.  100.  About  that  period 
three  unknown  persons  reduced  them  into  their  present 
form.  These  accounts  gradually  superseded  all  the  other 
stories,  and  became  accepted  by  the  Church  as  the  only 
true  account  of  the  actions  and  teaching  of  Jesus.  All 
the  miraculous  stories  in  the  Gospels  gradually  grew  up 
in  the  form  of  myths  and  legends  in  the  course  of  the 
seventy  years  which  followed  the  crucifixion.  They  are, 
in  fact,  a  growth  formed  by  the  imagination  of  the  early 
Church.     The  fourth  they  assert  to  be  a  late  forgery. 

My  answer  involves  a  distinct  issue.  Let  it  be  fairly 
met.      There  is  one  of  the  miraculous  narratives  in  the 


Resurrection  cf  Jesus  Christ  231 

GospelSj  which  certainly  did  not  originate  in  this  manner. 
This  is  the  miracle  of  the  Resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ, 
which,  whether  it  occurred  as  a  fact,  or  was  invented  as  a 
fiction,  was  believed  in  by  the  Church  shortly  after  the 
death  of  its  founder.  This  belief  was  the  foundation 
on  which  the  Christian  society  was  erected,  and  the 
cause  of  its  renewed  vitality. 

As  it  is  allowed  to  be  an  historical  fact  by  all  the  dis- 
tinguished unbelievers  of  Europe,  that  an  eminent  Jew, 
named  Jesus,  collected  a  number  of  followers,  who  be- 
lieved in  Him  as  the  Messiah  of  Jewish  expectations,  I 
shall  not  waste  your  time  in  proving  it.  It  is  evident  that 
His  public  execution  must  have  extinguished  their  hopes 
that  He  could  ever  fulfil  the  expectations  which  they  had 
formed.  Such  being  the  case,  the  community  which  He 
sought  to  found  must  have  gone  to  pieces,  unless  a  new 
leader  could  be  discovered  who  was  capable  of  occu- 
pying His  place.  But  as  its  existence  to  the  present 
hour  proves  that  it  did  not  perish,  it  is  certain  that  it 
must  have  made  a  fresh  start  of  some  kind ;  something 
must  have  happened,  which  was  not  only  capable  oi 
holding  it  together,  but  which  imparted  t6  it  a  new 
vitality.  It  is  no  less  clear  that  this  was  not  due  to  a 
new  leader,  who  stepped  into  the  place  of  its  original 
founder,  but  to  a  new  use  made  of  the  old  one.  Our 
histories  tell  us  that  this  new  impulse  was  imparted  by 
a  belief  that  Jesus  had  risen  from  the  dead.  Whether 
this  belief  was  founded  on  a  fact  or  a  fiction,  it  is  evi- 
dent that  it  is  one  which  could  not  have  occupied  many 
years  in  growing;  for  while  this  was  taking  place,  the 
original  community  founded  by  Jesus  must  have  perished 
from  the  want  of  anything  to  sustain  it  in  being. 

This  being  clear,  I  now  draw  your  attention  to  the 


232  The  Historical  Evideiice  of  the 

feet  that  we  have  the  most  unimpeachable  historical 
evidence  that  this  renewed  Hfe  of  the  Church  rested  on 
the  belief  that  its  founder,  after  He  had  been  crucified, 
rose  again  from  the  dead.  The  evidence  of  this  will  be 
derived  from  the  four  letters  of  the  apostle  Paul,  which 
all  the  eminent  unbelievers  of  modern  Europe  admit 
to  be  His  genuine  productions.  As  these  letters  form 
historical  evidence  of  the  highest  class,  I  must  draw  at- 
tention to  their  importance. 

It  is  often  urged  by  unbelievers,  that  we  have  no  con- 
temporaneous historical  documents.  The  first  three 
Gospels,  they  say,  are  by  nameless  authors,  which  cannot 
be  proved  to  have  been  in  existence  until  seventy  or 
eighty  years  after  the  events  narrated  in  them,  and  the 
fourth  is  a  forgery.  I  reply,  that  if  for  the  sake  of 
argument  I  suppose  this  to  be  a  true  statement  of  facts, 
which  it  is  not;  yet  we  are  in  possession  of  letters 
written  by  one  who  was  a  contemporary,  and  such  con- 
temporary letters  are  the  most  valuable  of  all  historical 
documents.  We  have  an  example  in  those  of  the  great 
Roman  statesman  and  orator,  Cicero,  which  were  col- 
lected and  published  after  his  death,  somewhat  about  a 
century  before  St.  Paul  wrote  his.  They  still  exist ;  and 
it  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  they  form  the  most  im- 
portant documents  we  possess,  for  giving  us  an  insight 
into  the  history  of  Rome  between  B.C.  loo  and  b.c  50. 
They  contain  a  continued  reference  to  current  events,  in 
which  the  great  statesman  and  orator  was  himself  per- 
sonally engaged,  and  to  the  times  during  which  he  lived ; 
and  enable  us  to  estimate  the  secret  springs  of  the  events 
of  the  time,  and  the  agencies  which  brought  them  about, 
in  a  manner  which  we  should  fail  to  do  if  we  had  nothing 
to  trust  to  but  the  ordinary  histories  of  the  period.     I^ 


Resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ.  ^33 

is  true  that  we  could  not  compose  a  perfect  history  from 
them  alone.  Their-  allusions  to  current  events  are  inci- 
dental ;  but  the  general  facts  of  the  history  being  known 
from  other  sources,  they  form  the  most  important  means 
of  enabling  us  to  estimate  its  true  character.  Cicero's 
letters  form  the  most  important  historical  document 
handed  down  to  us  by  the  ancient  world. 

A  similar  historical  value  attaches  to  all  collections  of 
contemporaneous  letters.  The  modern  historian  is  con- 
tinually hunting  them  up,  as  the  best  means  of  throwing 
a  clear  light  on  the  history  of  the  past.  They  are  far 
more  valuable  as  a  means  of  discriminating  truth  from 
falsehood,  than  even  formal  histories  which  have  been 
composed  by  writers  contemporaneous,  or  nearly  so,  with 
the  events..  Such  are  frequently  written  under  a  bias,  as, 
for  example.  Lord  Clarendon's  history  of  the  Rebellion. 
But  the  incidental  allusions  in  letters  frequently  put  us 
in  possession  of  facts  and  motives  which  have  been 
carefully  concealed  from  the  world,  especially  when 
they  are  the  confidential  communications  between 
friends.  They  form  the  highest  description  of  historical 
evidence. 

It  is  imposible  to  over-estimate  the  importance  of  the 
concession  made  to  us  by  learned  unbelievers,  that  we  are 
in  possession  of  four  documents  of  this  description,  carry- 
ing us  up  to  the  earliest  days  of  Christianity.  The  latest 
date  which  can  be  assigned  them  is  twenty -eight  years 
after  the  crucifixion.  They  put  us  into  direct  communi- 
cation with  the  mind  of  the  most  active  missionary  of 
the  infant  Church.  Their  character  is  such  that  they 
depict  the  whole  man  before  us ;  what  he  did,  what  he 
thought,  what  he  believed,  with  a  freshness  and  vigour 
which  is  scarcely  to  be  found  in  any  other  letters  in 


2'34  The  Historical  Evidence  of  the 

existence.  By  means  of  them  we  can  hold  direct  com- 
munion with  the  man  himself.  There  are  hardly  any 
letters  in  existence  which  bear  on  them  so  distinct  an 
impression  of  the  individuaHty  of  the  author.  It  is  of  no 
little  consequence  that  these  four  letters,  thus  admitted 
to  be  genuine,  are  the  most  important  of  those  which 
have  been  attributed  to  the  apostle. 

I  shall  rest  my  argument  on  these  four  letters  only.  At 
the  same  time  let  me  draw  your  attention  to  the  fact  that 
Renan,  who  is  one  of  the  most  eminent  unbelievers  of 
modern  Europe,  admits  the  genuineness  of  four  more,* 
and  has  very  little  doubt  about  that  of  two  others. t  By 
their  aid  he  has  written  a  Life  of  the  Apostle,  so  vivid  in 
details  as  to  vie  with  that  which  has  been  pronounced 
to  be  the  first  of  biographies — Boswell's  Life  of  Johnson. 
For  some  reason  our  English  unbelievers,  while  they 
could  not  make  too  great  haste  in  translating  into  English 
this  writer's  Life  of  Jesus  in  a  cheap  form,  have  not  yet 
seen  good  to  exhibit  his  Life  of  St.  Paul  in  an  Enghsh 
dress.     Why  do  they  not  publish  it? 

Having  pointed  out  the  value  of  contemporary  letters 
as  witnesses  to  historical  events,  I  now  draw  your  atten- 
tion to  the  fact  that  these  four  letters  of  St.  Paul  were 
written  within  that  interval  of  time  from  the  date  of  the 
crucifixion,  which  the  most  rigid  canons  of  criticism  lay 
down  as  within  the  most  perfect  period  of  historical  recol- 
lection. There  is  no  possibility  of  dating  them  eighty  or 
ninety  years  after  that  event,  as  unbelievers  for  their  own 
Convenience  date  the  first  three  Gospels,  in  order  that 
they  mayget  time  during  which  it  might  have  been  possible 

•  The  two  to  the  Thessalonians,  that  to  Philemon,  and  the 
Philippians. 

f   1  hose  to  the  Ephesiajis  and  Colossians. 


Resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ  235 

for  a  number  of  fictions  to  have  grown  up  in  the  bosoiu 
of  the  Christian  Church.  Not  only  was  ths  latest  of  them 
written  within  twenty-eight  years  of  the  crucifixion,  by  a 
man  whose  activity  as  a  missionary  of  Christianity  had 
extended  over  the  preceding  twenty  years^  but  who  was  of 
such  an  age  that  his  historical  recollections  were  good  for 
at  least  fifteen  years  earlier.  Although  he  had  not  seen 
Jesus  Christ  before  His  crucifixion,  he  must  have  con- 
versed with  multitudes  who  had  done  so.  In  reading  these 
letters,  therefore,  ^'e  are  in  possession  of  a  contempora- 
neous record  of  the  highest  order,  according  to  the  strictest 
rules  laid  down  by  Sir  George  Cornwell  Lewis,  in  his 
great  work  on  the  credibility  of  early  Roman  history.  In 
this  work  Sir  George  has  rigidly  analysed  the  value  of 
historical  evidence.  As  it  is  on  a  subject  purely 
secular,  and  is  considered  to  be  very  rigid  in  its  demands 
for  historical  evidence,  I  appeal  to  it  with  confidence. 

Let  us  now  test,  by  our  own  experience,  the  value  of 
historical  recollections  which  are  only  twenty-eight  years 
old.  The  repeal  of  the  corn  laws  took  place  at  exactly 
this  interval  of  time  from  the  present  year.  Those  who 
are  forty-five  years  old  must  have  a  clear  recollection  of 
the  events  by  which  it  was  brought  about ;  and  while 
they  continue  alive,  it  will  be  impossible  to  encircle  the 
chief  agents  in  it  with  a  mass  of  fable,  so  as  to  hide  the 
real  character  of  the  events.  Two  years  later  occurred 
the  revolution  in  France,  which  expelled  Louis  Philippe. 
Our  recollections  of  that  event  are  so  fresh  as  to  render  it 
impossible  that  we  could  become  the  prey  of  a  number  of 
legendary  stories  respecting  it.  Such  stories  can  only 
grow  up  after  the  lapse  of  considerable  intervals  of  time, 
when  the  recollection  of  events  has  lost  its  freshness,  and 
the  generation  which   witnessed   them    has   died    out. 


236  The  Historical  Evidence  of  the 

Observe,  then,  that  St.  Paul  was  separated  from  the 
crucifixion  when  he  wrote  these  letters  by  the  same  interval 
of  time  which  lies  between  us  and  the  two  events  in 
question. 

Having  pointed  out  the  value  of  these  letters  as  histori- 
cal evidence,  I  now  state  the  chief  facts  which  can  be 
distinctly  proved  by  them,  and  the  nature  of  the  evidence 
which  they  afford  of  the  historical  truth  of  the  Resurrection. 

1.  It  is  clear  that  not  only  did  St.  Paul  believe  in 
the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ  as  an  historical  fact ; 
but  that  he  considered  it  as  the  foundation  on  which  the 
revived  Christian  community  was  erected.  He  received 
it  as  the  one  only  ground  of  the  existence  of  the  Church. 
Whatever  may  be  said  of  his  references  to  other  miracles, 
his  references  to  this  one  are  of  the  most  unimpeachable 
character.  They  are  too  numerous  to  be  quoted  in  proof 
of  this  in  a  lecture  of  the  length  of  the  present  one.  One 
will  be  sufficient.  In  the  fifteenth  of  the  first  letter  to  the 
Corinthians  he  expressly  asserts  that  if  the  resurrection 
of  Jesus  Christ  is  not  a  fact,  Christianity  is  a  delusion.* 

2.  His  mode  of  reference  to  this  event  proves  that  he 
not  only  himself  believed  in  it  as  a  fact,  but  that  he  hac 
not  the  smallest  doubt  that  those  to  whom  he  wrote  be- 
lieved in  it  as  firmly  as  he  did.  He  refers  to  it  in  the  most 
direct  terms ;  he  refers  to  it  also  in  the  most  incidental  man- 
ner, as  the  foundation  of  the  common  faith  both  of  himself 
and  of  those  to  whom  he  wrote.  He  evidently  calculates 
that  they  would  accept  his  statements  without  the  smallest 
hesitation.  Now  nothing  is  more  valuable  than  a  set  of  in- 
cidental references  to  an  event.  They  prove  that  both  the 
writer  and  those  to  whom  he  writes  know  all  about  them, 
and  have  a  common  belief  in  them.     Now  observe  how 

*  See  Appendix. 


Resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ  237 

this  is  exemplified  in  the  ordinary  letters  which  we  write. 
When  we  are  of  opinion  that  our  correspondent  is  fully 
acquainted  with  an  event,  we  simply  allude  to  it,  without 
entering  on  a  formal  description  of  it.  We  feel  sure  that 
our  view  of  the  fact  will  be  accepted  by  him.  Such  is  the 
manner  in  which  St.  Paul  refers  to  the  resurrection  of 
Jesus  Christ,  throughout  these  letters,*  with  the  exception 
of  I  Cor.  XV.  and  ist  and  2nd  of  Galatians,  where  his 
reference  is  for  purposes  directly  historical  and  contro- 
versial. 

3.  There  are  circumstances  in  these  allusions  which 
render  this  testimony  stronger  than  any  other  in  history. 
Party  spirit  raged  fiercely  in  two  of  these  churches, 
to  whom  these  letters  were  written.  In  the  Corinthian 
Church  there  were  several  parties  who  were  more  or 
less  adverse  to  St.  Paul.  He  names  three  of  them ;  an 
Apollos  party;  another  which  designated  themselves  by 
the  name  of  Peter ;  and  a  third  which  used  the  name  of 
Christ  as  their  special  designation.  Besides  these,  he 
specifies  a  party  which  was  especially  attached  to  him- 
self. One  of  these  parties  went  the  extreme  length  of 
denying  his  right  to  the  apostolical  office^  on  the  ground 
that  he  had  not  been  one  of  the  original  companions  of 
Jesus.  No  small  portion  of  the  second  Epistle  is 
occupied  with  dealing  with  this  party,  and  defending  his 
own  position  against  them.f 

Such  being  the  state  of  affairs  in  this  Church,  it  is 
obvious  that  if  the  party  in  opposition  to  his  apostle- 
ship  had  held  any  different  views  respecting  the  reality 
of  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ  from  himself,  the 
demolition  of  the  entire  defence  which  he  puts  in  for  it 
was  certain.  He  puts  the  question,  "  Have  I  not  seen 
*  See  Appendix.  t  See  Appendix. 


23S  The  Historical  Evidence  of  the 

Jesus  Christ  our  LordV^  I  do  not  quote  these  words 
as  evidence  that  he  had  really  seen  Jesus  Christ,  but  as 
a  proof  that  if  his  opponents  had  not  been  firmly  per- 
suaded that  the  resurrection  was  a  fact,  the  moment  this 
letter  was  read,  they  would  have  instantly  denounced 
him  as  a  falsifier  of  the  Gospel;  and  declared  that  his 
claim  to  apostolical  authority,  based  on  his  having  seen 
the  risen  Jesus,  was  worthless,  because  he  had  not  risen. 
It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  as  far  as  the  fact  of  the 
resurrection  was  con'cerned,  St.  Paul  and  his  bitterest 
opponents  were  agreed  as  to  its  truth. 

4.  The  evidence  furnished  by  the  Epistle  to  the 
Galatians  is  yet  more  conclusive.  Here  was  a  strong 
party,  who  not  only  denied  St.  Paul's  apostleship,  but 
who  had  so  far  departed  from  his  teaching,  that  he 
designates  their  doctrines  by  the  name  of  another  gospel. 
This  party  had  been  so  successful,  that  they  had  drawn 
away  a  large  number  of  St.  Paul's  own  converts.  No 
one  can  read  this  letter  without  seeing  that  the  state  of 
things  in  this  Church  touched  him  to  the  quick.  It  is 
full  of  the  deepest  bursts  of  feeling.  Yet  the  whole 
letter  is  written  throughout  with  the  most  entire  con- 
fidence, that  however  great  were  the  differences  between 
himself  and  his  opponents,  there  was  no  diversity  of 
view  between  them  and  him,  that  the  belief  in  the  re- 
surrection of  Jesus  was  the  foundation  stone  of  their 
common  Christianity.  Hear  his  words  at  the  beginning 
of  this  letter.  *'  Paul,  an  apostle  (not  of  ma?i,  neither  by 
man,  but  by  Jesus  Christ,  and  God  the  Father,  who 
raised  him  from  the  dead,)  and  all  the  brethren  who  are 
with  me,  to  the  churches  of  Galatia.  .  .  I  marvel  that  ye 
are  so  soon  removed  from  him  that  called  you  into  the 
grace  of  Christ  unto  another  gospel :  which  is  not  another ; 


Resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ  239 

but  there  are  some  which  trouble  you,  and  would  subvert 
the  gospel  of  God."  If  St.  Paul's  belief,  and  that  of 
his  opponents  on  this  point,  had  not  been  at  entire 
agreement,  no  man  in  his  senses  would  have  thrown 
them  down  such  a  challenge  as  is  contained  in  these 
words,  and  is  continued  in  the  strongest  terms  through- 
out the  entire  letter. 

5.  But  the  evidence  furnished  by  this  letter  goes 
far  beyond  the  mere  belief  of  the  Galatian  churches 
at  the  time  it  was  sent  to  them.  It  involves  the  testi- 
mony of  two  other  churches,  viz.,  that  of  the  great 
Church  at  Antioch,  which  was  the  metropolis  of  Gentile 
Christianity,  and  that  of  the  mother  Churchi  of  Jerusa- 
lem, and  carries  it  up  to  a  much  earlier  date.  St.  Paul's 
opponents  were  Judaizing  Christians,  who  professed 
themselves  to  be  the  followers  of  St.  Peter  and  St. 
James.  St.  Paul,  in  the  second  chapter,  asserts  that  his 
teaching  was  in  substantial  harmony  with  that  of  these 
two  great  chiefs  of  the  Jewish  Church.  St.  Paul's 
opponents  were  Christians  who  belonged  to  the  most 
extreme  Juadizing  party  in  the  Church,  and  who  main- 
tained that  the  observation  of  the  law  of  Moses,  with  all 
its  rites  and  ceremonies,  was  an  integral  portion  of 
Christianity.  Yet  this  party  was  at  one  with  Paul  in 
believing  that  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  was  a  fact.  If  so, 
the  whole  Jewish  Church,  even  its  most  extreme  mem- 
bers, concurred  in  that  belief.  The  second  chapter 
makes  it  plain  that  the  whole  Church  at  Antioch  did  the 
same  at  the  period  when  St  Peter  and  St.  Paul  jointly 
visited  it,  and  involves  the  fact  of  St  Peter's  direct  tes- 
timony to  the  truth  of  the  resurrection.  This  alone  is 
sufficient  to  prove  that  the  belief,  thatjesus  Christ  rose 
from  the  dead,  was  no  after-growth,  but  was  coincident 


240  The  Historical  Evidence  of  tFie 

with  the  renewed  life  of  the  Christian  Church  imme- 
diately after  the  crucifixion. 

6.  Let  us  now  look  into  the  evidence  supplied  by 
the  Epistle  to  the  Romans.  If  it  be  urged  that  St. 
Paul  had  founded  some  of  the  other  churches,  and 
that  even  his  opponents  some  way  or  other  had  adopted 
his  views  on  this  point,  this  was  a  Church  which  he 
had  neither  founded  nor  visited.  It  had  evidently  been 
in  existence  years  before  he  wrote  his  letter  to  them. 
This  Church  was  so  large  and  important,  that  he  felt  that 
he  was  not  in  danger  of  being  misapprehended,  when  he 
stated  that  their  faith  was  a  subject  of  conversation 
throughout  the  whole  world.  It  contained  a  large  Jewish 
element ;  and  from  the  number  of  strangers  who  visited 
that  city,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  among  its  members 
were  representatives  of  every  variety  of  Christian  thought. 
Yet  he  addressed  this  Church  with  the  full  confidence 
that  its  members  held  the  same  views  respecting  the 
resurrection  as  he  did  himself.  Not  only  is  all  his 
teaching  based  on  the  supposition  of  its  truth,  and  the 
fact  again  and  again  reiterated;  but  the  opening  of 
the  letter  declares  that  Jesus  Christ  was  marked  out  as 
the  Son  of  God  by  the  resurrection  from  the  dead,  and 
that  on  it  was  founded  his  claims  to  be  an  apostle. 

We  have  thus  firmly  established  the  fact  that  within  a 
period  of  less  than  twenty-eight  years  after  the  cruci- 
fixion three  large  Christian  Churches,  who  were  sepa- 
rated from  each  other  by  hundreds  of  miles  of  space, 
were  all  of  the  same  mind  in  believing  that  Jesus 
Christ  had  risen  from  the  dead,  and  that  this  belief  was 
the  sole  ground  of  the  existence  of  the  Christian  com- 
munity. Consider  how  long  it  would  have  taken  for 
such  a  belief  to  have  grown  up  in  Churches  thus  widely 


Resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ  241 

separated.  We  have  found  that  similar  was  the  belief  of 
the  Jewish  Church,  and  of  that  at  Antioch,  and  proved 
that  it  was  believed  in  by  those  churches  from  their 
first  origin  We  may  therefore  safely  infer  that  it  was 
the  belief  of  the  entire  Christian  body  wherever  situ- 
ated. It  is  useless  therefore  to  assert  that  the  belief 
in  the  miraculous  stories  of  the  Gospels  grew  up  very 
grudually  during  the  first  century,  and  for  the  purpose  of 
enabling  them  to  have  done  so,  to  put  off  the  publica- 
tion of  the  first  three  Gospels  to  its  close  or  the  first 
ten  years  of  the  second.  On  the  contrary,  we  have 
indisputable  evidence  that  the  greatest  of  these  miracles 
was  implicitly  believed  in  within  much  less  than  twenty- 
eight  years  after  the  crucifixion. 

6.  This  belief  was  evidently  not  one  of  recent  growth. 
The  mode  in  which  allusion  is  made  to  it  proves  that  it 
was  contemporaneous  with  the  first  belief  in  Christianity 
on  the  part  of  those  to  whom  St.  Paul  wrote.  As  we 
have  seen,  many  of  them  were  Jewish  Christians,  who 
must  have  been  very  early  converts  themselves,  or 
who  must  have  derived  their  faith  from  those  who  were. 
The  allusions  in  the  letter  to  the  Galatians  plainly  include 
the  testimony  of  St.  Peter  and  St.  James.  We  also  find, 
by  a  most  incidental  allusion  in  the  letter  to  the  Romans, 
that  there  were  two  members  of  that  Church  who  had 
embraced  Christianity  before  St.  Paul.  The  allusion  is  so 
incidental,  that  it  is  worth  quoting.  It  occurs  in  the 
midst  of  a  large  number  of  salutations,  "  Salute  Androni- 
cus  and  Junia,  my  kinsmen,  and  my  fellow-prisoners,  who 
are  of  note  among  the  apostles,  who  also  were  in  Christ 
before  me."  Yet  they  were  all  agreed  on  this  point. 
St.  Paul  had  believed  it  from  his  conversion,  2.^.,  within 
less  than  than  ten  years  after  the  crucifixion.     Andronicus 


242  The  Historical  Evidence  of  the 

and  Junia  believed  it  still  earlier.  Peter,  James,  and 
John  also  believed  it  from  the  first ;  for  St.  Paul  states 
that  he  communicated  to  them  the  gospel  which  he 
preached  among  the  Gentiles;  and  that  they  generally 
approved  of  it ;  and  in  the  fifteenth  to  the  Corinthians 
he  expressly  affirms  that  Peter  and  James  had  seen  Jesus 
Christ  after  He  was  risen  from  the  dead.  Let  it  be 
observed  than  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  he  informs 
us  that  he  paid  Peter  a  visit  of  fifteen  days,  three  years 
after  his  own  conversion ;  and  that  during  this  visit,  he 
had  an  interview  with  James.  We  cannot  err,  there- 
fore, in  asserting  that  we  have  here  the  direct  testimony 
of  these  two  men,  that  they  had  seen  the  risen  Jesus. 
It  follows,  therefore,  that  the  belief  in  the  Resurrection 
was  that  on  which  the  Church  was  reconstructed  imme- 
diately after  the  crucifixion. 

7.  St.  Paul  makes,  in  the  fifteenth  to  the  Corinthians, 
a  very  definite  statement  as  to  a  number  of  persons  who 
had  actually  seen  Jesus  Christ  after  He  had  risen  from 
the  dead.  He  tell  us  that  on  one  occasion  He  was  seen 
by  more  than  five  hundred  persons  at  once,  of  whom  the 
greater  part,  i.e.y  more  than  two  hundred  and  fifty,  were 
still  living  when  he  wrote.  Now  consider  how  St.  Paul, 
in  making  this  assertion,  put  himself  in  the  hands  of 
those  opponents  who  denied  his  apostleship.  If  the 
resurrection  was  not  generally  believed  to  be  true,  the 
discussion  between  them  might  have  been  put  an  end  to 
then  and  there,  by  a  simple  exposure  of  the  falsehood  of 
such  a  statement.  But  if  these  five  hundred  persons 
really  thought  that  they  had  seen  Jesus  Christ  alive  after 
He  was  crucified,  how  is  it  possible  to  account  for  so 
singular  a  fact,  otherwise  than  on  the  supposition  of  its 
truth? 


Resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ.  243 

8.  But  further:  in  the  Corinthian  Church  there  were 
persons  who  denied  the  possibility  of  a  resurrection,  after 
the  body  had  been  dissolved  into  its  various  elements 
(i  Cor.  XV.  14,  25),  and  who  affirmed  that  all  that  was 
meant  by  the  future  resurrection  was  a  great  spiritual 
change.  Yet,  with  defective  logic,  they  admitted  that 
the  resurrection  of  Christ  had  been  a  bodily  one  (see 
I  Cor.  XV.  12 — 17).  The  apostle  presses  them  with  the 
following  reasoning,  How  can  you  deny  the  possibility  of 
a  bodily  resurrection  hereafter,  when  you  admit  that 
Christ  actually  rose  from  the  dead  ?  If  this  latter  point 
had  not  been  the  foundation  of  the  faith  of  the  Church, 
they  might  have  made  short  work  of  the  apostle  and  his 
logic  by  simply  denying  the  truth  of  the  bodily  resurrec- 
tion of  Jesus  Christ.  This  circumstance  also  proves  that 
there  were  persons  in  the  Church  to  whom  this  letter  was 
written  who  were  far  from  being  disposed  readily  to 
beHeve  in  a  story  of  a  resurrection  from  the  dead.  In 
one  word,  they  were  not  over-credulous. 

We  are  now  in  a  position  most  positively  to  affirm  that 
the  story  of  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ  was  no  fiction 
which  slowly  grew  up  during  the  latter  half  of  the  first  cen- 
tury, but  that  it  was  a  fact,  fully  believed  in  by  those  who 
gave  the  new  impulse  to  the  Christian  Church  after  the 
crucifixion  of  its  Founder.  I  have  not  quoted  the  testi- 
mony of  the  Gospels  to  prove  this,  because  my  opponents 
deny  its  validity.  I  have  simply  deduced  it  from  histori- 
cal documents,  which  they  allow  to  be  genuine.  It  is 
evident,  therefore,  that  one  miracle  narrated  in  these 
Gospels  is  not  a  late-invented  myth.  It  remains  for  me 
to  inquire  whether  this  belief  could  have  rested  on  a 
delusion.  But  before  doing  so,  I  will  sum  up  briefly  the 
points  I  have  proved  on  the  highest  historical  evidence.. 


244  ^^^^  Historical  Evidence  of  the 

1.  That  within  twenty-eight  years  after  the  cruci- 
fixion, the  Christian  Church,  without  distinction  of  party, 
beHeved  that  the  one  ground  of  its  existence  was  that 
Jesus  Christ  had  risen  from  the  dead. 

2.  That  at  that  period  there  were  more  than  two 
hundred  and  fifty  persons  Hving  who  beHeved  that  they 
had  seen  Him  aUve  after  His  crucifixion. 

3.  That  it  is  an  unquestionable  fact  that  the  whole 
Christian  Church  believed  in  the  resurrection  of  its 
Founder  as  the  sole  ground  of  its  existence,  within  less 
than  ten  years  from  the  date  of  the  crucifixion. 

4.  That  the  belief  in  the  fact  of  the  resurrection  was 
equally  held  by  St.  Paul  and  his  most  violent  opponents. 

5.  That  at  least  three  of  the  original  apostles  asserted 
that  they  had  seen  Jesus  Christ  alive  after  His  death. 

6.  That  a  belief  that  He  had  risen  from  the  dead  was 
the  cause  which  imparted  its  renewed  vitality  to  the 
Church. 

Such  having  been  proved  on  unquestionable  evidence 
to  have  been  historical  facts,  it  remains  for  me  to 
examine  whether  they  are  consistent  with  any  other 
assumption,  than  that  the  belief  in  them  was  founded  on 
a  reality. 

There  are  three,  and  only  three  possible  alternatives  : — 

1.  The  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ  was  a  fact ;  or, 

2.  The  belief  of  the  Church  in  it  was  the  result  of  a 
fraud,  deliberately  and  consciously  concocted  ;  or, 

3.  The  original  followers  of  Jesus  were  the  victims 
of  a  delusion. 

I  shall  deem  myself  exonerated  from  the  necessity  of 
examining  the  second  of  these  alternatives,  because  it  has 
been  abandoned  as  untenable  by  all  eminent  modern 
unbelievers. 


Resurrection  of  Jesics  Christ  245 

Two  alternatives  have  been  suggested  to  account  for 
the  belief  in  the  resurrection,  on  the  ground  that  it 
originated  in  a  delusion,  of  which  the  followers  of 
Jesus  Christ  were  the  prey.  The  first  of  these  is, 
that  they  were  intensely  enthusiastic  and  credulous ; 
that  some  one  or  more  of  them  fancied  that  they 
saw  Jesus  alive  after  His  death,  and  succeeded  in 
persuading  the  others  that  it  was  a  fact.  Of  these 
theories,  that  of  Renan  is  a  fair  representation,  that 
Mary  Magdalene,  in  the  midst  of  her  grief  and  emotion, 
mistook  the  gardener  for  Jesus  ;  thought  that  He  had 
risen  from  the  dead,  and  communicated  her  enthusiasm 
to  the  rest. 

The  second  is,  that  Jesus  did  not  really  die,  but  was 
taken  down  from  the  cross  in  a  swoon,  from  which  He 
awoke  in  the  sepulchre ;  that  He  managed  to  creep  out 
in  an  exhausted  state,  lived  in  retirement,  and  died 
shortly  afterwards. 

To  this  last  supposition  I  will  reply  first.  I  allow  that 
it  was  possible  for  a  man  who  had  been  suspended  for 
some  hours  on  tlie  cross,  if  taken  down  and  carefully 
treated,  to  recover.  This,  as  we  are  informed  by 
Josephus,  happened  to  one  of  his  friends,  though  it  was 
the  exception,  for  two  out  of  three  died  under  cure.  But 
in  the  case  of  Jesus,  we  have  to  meet  the  fact  that  He 
was  in  the  hands  of  His  enemies,  who  would  have  seen 
to  His  burial  as  a  criminal  who  had  been  publicly 
executed ;  and  thus  have  put  the  possibility  of  recovery 
out  of  the  question.  It  is  true  that  our  Gospels  assert 
that  Pilate  gave  His  body  to  His  friends.  But  my 
opponents  afiirm  that  the  whole  account  is  unhistorical. 
If,  however,  they  accept  the  statements  of  the  Gospels 
on  this  point,  they  are  bound  also  to  accept  their  further 


246  The  Historical  Evidence  of  the 

assertion,  that  Pilate  took  care  to  ascertain  that  the  body 
was  dead  before  he  resigned  it,  and  that  it  was  interred, 
and  left  in  a  sepulchre  closed  with  a  large  stone. 

But  as  after  the  crucifixion  He  disappears  from  history, 
except  in  the  supposition  that  He  rose  from  the  dead, 
those  who  propound  the  theory  that  He  was  taken  down 
alive  are  obliged  to  admit  that  He  died  from  exhaus 
tion  shortly  afterwards.  Now  it  is  certain  that  if  He  left 
the  grave  alive,  He  must  have  been  kept  in  conceal- 
ment out  of  the  way  of  His  enemies ;  for  those  who  had 
succeeded  in  crucifying  Him  would  not  have  allowed 
Him  to  remain  undisturbed.  It  is  also  evident,  that  it 
He  lived  in  concealment,  His  followers  had  access  to 
Him,  or  they  had  not;  if  the  former  was  the  case,  it 
would  have  been  impossible  to  have  mistaken  a  wounded 
man,  dying  from  exhaustion,  for  the  Messiah  of  Jewish 
expectation,  or  to  have  magnified  this  into  a  resur- 
rection from  the  dead.  But  if  they  never  saw  Him, 
then  the  belief  in  His  resurrection  resolves  itself  into 
the  case  of  simple  credulity  and  fanaticism. 

But  a  Messiah  who  crept  out  of  His  grave,  and  died 
from  exhaustion  shortly  afterwards,  was  not  one  who 
could  have  satisfied  the  exigencies  of  the  community  which 
had  been  crushed  by  His  crucifixion.  They  had  expected 
Him  to  reign  as  the  Messiah ;  and,  lo,  a  cross  was  the 
only  throne  allowed  Him.  Yet  it  is  the  most  certain  oi 
historical  facts,  that  the  Christian  community  commenced  a 
new  life  immediately  after  its  original  foundation  had  been 
subverted  by  His  execution.  Nothing  but  a  resurrection, 
or  one  which  was  mistaken  for  a  reality,  could  have 
served  the  purpose.  Something  had  to  be  done,  and 
that  quickly.  Without  it  the  Church  must  have  perished 
in  the  grave  of  its  founder. 


Resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ.  247 

As  there  is  not  a  single  trace  in  history  that  the  place 
of  Jesus  was  taken  by  a  new  leader,  who  assumed  the 
position  of  the  Messiah,  which  had  been  rendered  vacant 
by  the  crucifixion  of  Jesus,  or  even  by  His  retirement,  it 
is  evident  that  some  event  must  have  taken  place,  which 
enabled  Him  to  occupy  the  place  which  He  originally 
assumed  in  the  opinion  of  His  followers.  It  is  certain 
that  if  He  was  supposed  to  be  aUve,  living  in  retirement, 
this  would  have  never  succeeded  in  revivifying  the 
Church.  The  Church  had  before  it  the  alternative  of 
finding  a  Messiah  or  perishing.  If  it  be  urged,  that  ii 
Jesus  succeeded  in  creeping  out  of  His  grave,  and  living 
in  retirement,  after  an  interval  of  time  this  might  have 
grown  up  into  the  idea  of  His  resurrection,  the  requisite 
time  is  not  to  be  had ;  for  while  the  idea  was  growing, 
the  Church  would  have  become  extinct,  and  I  have 
proved  that  the  belief  in  the  resurrection  can  be  traced 
up  to  a  very  short  interval  after  the  crucifixion,  so  that 
the  requisite  time  cannot  possibly  be  found. 

I  now  proceed  to  examine  the  question,  whether  it 
was  possible  that  the  original  followers  of  Jesus  could 
have  been  deceived  into  a  belief  of  His  resurrection  by 
means  of  their  enthusiasm  and  credulity.  Nothing  is 
easier  than  to  assert  that  some  one  of  them  fancied  that 
he  had  seen  Him  alive,  and  communicated  his  enthusiasm 
to  the  rest ;  and  that  others  got  into  their  heads  similar 
fancies,  and  mistook  them  for  realities.  But  in  practical 
life  such  things  are  not  easy  nor  possible ;  for  they 
contradict  all  the  facts  of  human  nature. 

I  will,  however,  assume,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  that 
the  original  followers  of  Jesus  were  men  of  the  mose 
unbounded  credulity  and  enthusiasm ;  only  observing  that 
we  have  not  one  atom  of  evidence  for  the  assumption. 


248  The  Historical  Evidence  of  the 

Let  it  be  observed,  however,  that  the  profoundest 
credulity  has  certain  Hmits,  which  it  has  never  yet  been 
known  to  overstep.  A  behef  in  a  certain  round  ot 
supernaturaHsm  is  one  which  has  been  widely  diffused 
among  mankind;  and  a  large  number  of  marvellous 
stories  are  readily  accepted  by  them,  on  httle  or  no 
evidence.  It  is  comparatively  easy  to  get  men  to 
believe  that  they  have  seen  ghosts,  still  easier  that  others 
have  seen  them.  But  there  is  one  marvel  which  human 
credulity  has  not  been  induced  to  accept,  that  a  man 
who  has  actually  died,  has  been  seen  and  conversed 
with  in  bodily  reality.  I  believe  that  no  case  can  be 
found  in  history  in  which  a  man  has  asserted  that  he  has 
seen  with  his  own  eyes  a  human  body  revivified  after  it 
was  actually  dead.  The  old  Pagans,  who  accepted  super- 
naturaHsm enough,  would  have  scoffed  at  such  a  beUef 
as  lying  beyond  the  bounds  of  the  possible.  I  am  aware 
that  a  few  old  Pagan  stories  exist  about  men  who  were 
brought  back  from  the  other  world ;  but  they  belong  to 
poetry,  and  were  wisely  placed  by  the  poets  in  the 
remotest  ages  of  the  past.  Evidence  that  a  man  ever 
existed,  who  really  believed  that  he  had  seen  and  con- 
versed with  one  who  had  been  raised  from  the  dead, 
wholly  fails.     Celsus  scoffs  at  the  idea. 

If,  then,  it  is  a  most  difficult  thing  to  get  a  single 
person  who  is  in  possession  of  his  reason,  to  believe  that 
he  has  seen  and  held  communications  with  one  who 
has  been  actually  revivified,  what  shall  we  say  as  to 
getting  a  considerable  number,  not  to  speak  of  the  five 
hundred  persons  mentioned  by  St.  Paul,  to  believe  in  such 
a  fact.  Yet  considerable  numbers  must  have  believed 
this  fact  before  the  Church  could  have  commenced  its 
renewed  life.     Such  beliefs  are  only  possible  when  they 


Resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ  249 

have  become  reports  at  second  hand,  or  after  a  long 
interval  of  time.  This  latter  condition  is  absolutely- 
necessary.  But  as  I  have  proved  that  the  belief  in  the 
resurrection  of  Jesus  must  have  originated  within  a  very- 
brief  interval  after  his  crucifixion,  it  is  useless  to 
discuss  any  supposition  which  renders  it  necessary-  to 
invoke  the  aid  of  a  long  interval  of  time  to  bring  it 
about.  There  is  no  such  interval  at  our  command  in 
the  present  case.  The  historical  evidence  is  over- 
whelming, that  the  belief  in  the  resurrection  of  Jesus 
was  the  starting-point  of  the  renewed  life  of  the  Church. 
It  is  evident,  therefore,  that,  under  any  conceivable 
view  of  the  case,  a  belief  in  a  resurrection,  if  entertained 
by-  any  considerable  number  of  people,  must  have  taken 
years  to  grow.  No  amount  of  credulity  can  account  for 
its  rapid  dissemination.  How  long  would  it  take  to 
persuade  one  hundred  of  the  most  credulous  persons  in 
London  that  a  man  who  had  been  executed  at  Newgate, 
and  buried  m  the  custody  of  the  authorities,  had  not 
only  appeared  alive  again,  but  had  actually  conversed 
with  some  of  them,  and  to  unite  them  into  a  community 
on  the  basis  of  this  belief?  It  is  obvious  that  such  a 
belief,  if  possible  at  all,  could  only  grow  up  after  a 
considerable  number  of  years;  and  only  then  among 
persons  who  did  not  profess  to  have  seen  the  dead  man 
actually  revived.  Before  it  could  have  been  possible, 
memories  must  have  faded,  and  events  must  have  been 
removed  into  the  obscurity  of  the  past.  I  put  it  to  my 
opponents  to  say  how  many  years  they  think  that  it  would 
require  to  render  such  an  operation  possible.  Would  ten, 
fifteen,  or  twenty  suffice  ?  Until  this  had  taken  place  no 
development  of  the  Church  was  possible.  Yet  the  Church 
spread  immediately.     But  with  respect  to  the  resurrectio  i 


250  The  Historical  Evidence  of  the 

of  Jesus  Christ,  I  have  proved,  on  the  most  indisputable 
historical  evidence,  that  it  was  believed  by  the  entire 
Church,  as  the  foundation  on  which  its  existence  rested, 
within  a  brief  interval  after  the  crucifixion. 

But  observe  further  :  the  belief  in  the  resurrection  was 
no  idle  belief,  like  that  in  a  common  ghost  story,  or  an 
ordinary  marvel.  Such  beliefs  begin  and  end  in  nothing. 
But  this  had  an  energy  and  power  sufficient  to  recon- 
struct the  Church.  It  was  not  the  mere  beHef  entertained 
by  individuals,  but  one  which  sustained  the  weight  of  an 
institution.  This  beHef  went  on  spreading  itself  until  within 
less  than  seventy  years  it  had  firmly  established  itself  in 
all  the  great  cities  of  the  Roman  Empire,  and  had  long 
before  shown  itself  capable  of  standing  the  test  of  martyr- 
dom. It  must,  therefore,  have  been  a  profound  con- 
viction, and  not  a  sentimental  dream.  Where  in  history 
will  you  find  a  rapidly  progressing  community,  or  any 
institution  at  all,  which  has  been  founded  on  the  belief 
that  a  man,  who  had  been  dead,  rose  again  from  the 
dead?  Let  us  consider  the  state  of  things  during  the 
days,  or  weeks,  or  even  months,  which  must  have  fol- 
lowed the  crucifixion.  The  devoted  followers  of  Jesus 
had  brought  themselves  into  a  belief  that  a  new  king- 
dom of  God  was  about  to  be  established  in  His  person. 
His  public  execution  must  have  extinguished  the  hope 
that  it  would  be  established  by  Him.  Could  all  the 
enthusiasm  and  credulity  in  the  world  have  thought  other- 
wise ?  Suppose,  even,  that  a  fanatic  woman  had  reported 
that  she  had  seen  Him  alive  some  hours,  days,  or  months 
afterwards  :  would  His  depressed  followers  have  been 
satisfied  if  He  did  not  appear  to  them  ?  Would  such  a 
report  set  them  to  reconstruct  a  blasted  institution,  which 
had  no  ground  of  existence  except  in  its  Founder's  life  ? 


Resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ,  251 

But  further :  the  followers  of  Jesus  must  have  imme- 
diately resolved  on  a  change  of  tactics.  A  visible 
Messiah  was  the  one  which  they  wanted,  not  an  invisible 
one  after  the  old  type.  It  must  have  been  evident  that 
Jesus  would  be  a  visible  one  no  longer.  He  appeared 
no  more  in  public,  either  as  a  teacher  or  worker  of 
miracles.  An  entire  change  of  front  was  therefore 
necessary,  before  it  was  possible  to  reconstitute  the 
Church.  Was  the  mere  report  of  a  credulous  enthusiast, 
that  He  was  risen  from  the  dead,  likely,  under  these 
circumstances,  to  have  been  accepted,  while  He  with- 
held His  presence  from  His  own  personal  friends  ? 

One  solution,  and  one  only,  is  adequate  to  account 
for  the  renewed  life  of  the  Church,  that  Jesus  verily 
appeared  alive  to  those  persons  who  asserted  that  they 
had  seen  Him,  and  that  He  afforded  them  such  evidence 
of  the  truth  of  His  resurrection  as  is  recorded  in  our 
Gospels.  If  this  event  is  an  historical  fact ;  if  Jesus 
gave  His  followers  evidence  of  His  resurrection,  by 
allowing  them  to  see  Him  with  their  eyes,  and  to  touch 
Him  with  their  hands,  this  gives  a  rational  account  of  all 
the  phenomena.  No  other  supposition  will.  That  the  faith 
of  His  followers  was  revived  in  Him  as  the  Messiah 
within  a  short  interval  after  His  death,  is  a  fact  for  which 
I  have  adduced  the  strongest  historical  testimony.  His 
resurrection  was  believed  in  by  multitudes,  while  historical 
recollections  continued  of  the  freshest  character.  His 
appearance  would  have  imparted  to  His  followers  a 
faith  which  gives  a  rational  account  of  their  subsequent 
conduct.  Nothing  else  can  explain  it  on  rational 
principles.  It  was  a  moral  power  adequate  to  effect  the 
great  change. 

I  have  hitherto  withheld  from  quoting  the  narratives 


252  The  Historical  Evidejice  of  the 

of  the  Evangelists  as  a  portion  of  the  evidence  of  the 
resurrection.  My  reason  for  having  done  so  is,  that  those 
with  whom  I  am  reasoning  assert  that  they  are  unhis- 
torical.  I  have  therefore  only  employed  data  which  they 
concede  to  me ;  from  these  data  I  have  shown  that  the 
resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ  has  the  highest  evidence  as 
an  historical  fact.  No  event  in  past  history  has  a  stronger 
attestation.  It  was  believed  in  by  the  whole  Church  as  the 
ground  of  its  existence.  The  Church  was  torn  by  parties. 
The  most  adverse  parties  in  the  Church  believed  it.  It 
was  believed  in  by  churches  widely  separated  from  one 
another ;  it  imparted  to  them  all  their  vitality.  It  was  be- 
lieved in  by  the  original  Jewish  Church ;  it  formed  the 
sole  ground  of  its  renewed  existence.  If  a  fact,  it  fully 
accounts  for  it.  Peter  asserted  that  he  had  seen  Jesus 
Christ  after  He  had  risen  from  the  dead  ;  so  did  James,  so 
did  all  the  apostles,  so  did  more  than  five  hundred  others. 
Paul  believed  that  he  had  seen  Him  also ;  and  this  be- 
lief of  his  changed  him  from  a  persecutor  into  a  preacher 
of  Christianity,  and  caused  him  to  devote  the  whole  of 
his  life  to  the  most  self-denying  labours  in  its  service. 

Such  being  the  case,  I  am  now  in  a  position  to 
restore  the  Gospels  to  their  proper  place  as  historical 
documents.  With  these  facts  proved,  it  is  useless  for 
unbelievers  to  affirm,  as  far  as  the  resurrection  is 
concerned,  that  they  were  written  by  nameless  authors 
long  after  the  events  which  -they  profess  to  record. 
The  truth  of  the  resurrection  of  C>Arist  can  be  proved 
independently  of  their  testimony ;  but  their  statements 
respecting  that  event  are  strictly  in  conformity  with  the 
facts  which  I  have  proved  to  be  historical.  They  fully 
corroborate  them,  and  offer  a  rational  explanation  of 
them.     The  fourth  Evangelist  asserts  that  on  three  occa- 


Resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ.  253 

sions  he  saw  the  risen  Jesus,  in  such  a  manner  as  to 
leave  no  doubt  of  the  truth  of  His  actual  appearance. 
The  accounts  of  the  three  others  are  fragmentary,  but 
afford  substantial  narratives  of  facts.  They  describe 
several  appearances  of  Jesus  Christ  after  He  was  risen 
from  the  dead,  at  which  He  afforded  to  His  disciples  the 
means  of  testing  the  reality  of  His  resurrection  by  their 
bodily  senses. 

It  will  be  asserted  that  their  accounts  contain  narra-^ 
tions  which  are  difficult  to  reconcile  with  one  another 
in  their  minute  details.  I  admit  that  such  is  the  fact, 
and  that  it  results  from  the  peculiar  form  of  writings 
to  which  the  Gospels  belong.  They  are  not  regular 
histories,  but  religious  memoirs ;  as  such,  they  do  not 
profess  to  furnish  us  with  a  complete  and  continuous 
narrative.  But  they  agree  in  all  their  great  features 
according  to  the  conditions  of  the  case.  The  events 
of  the  day  of  the  resurrection  must  have  thrown  the 
followers  of  Jesus  into  the  greatest  excitement.  The 
accounts,  as  we  read  them  in  the  first  three  Gospels,  are 
exactly  such  as  we  should  expect  from  men  and  women 
under  similar  circumstances.  They  are  broken,  dis- 
jointed, without  any  attempt  being  made  to  weave  them 
into  a  complete  whole ;  yet,  in  all  the  main  facts,  their 
testimony  agrees.  This  is  what  they  should  be,  if  they 
contain  the  reports,  not  of  forgers,  not  of  myths  or  legends, 
but  of  genuine  witnesses.  We  may  not  be  able  to  re- 
concile the  various  details  j  of  this  difficulty  unbelievers 
have  made  the  most  they  can.  Let  them  hear  and 
attend  to  one  of  their  greatest  authorities.  The  West- 
minster Review  tells  them  that  the  habit  of  carping  at 
small  minor  details  is  useless.  All  histories  contain 
variations,  or,  if  you  like  to  call  them,  contradictions,  on 


254  Resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ. 

minor  points.  This,  says  the  Review^  has  been  the  case 
with  every  history  which  has  ever  been  written  from 
Herodotus  to  Mr.  Froude.*  Let  unbelievers  therefore 
join  issue  in  the  main  facts  of  the  gospel  history,  just  as 
they  would  with  any  secular  history,  and  we  will  meet 
them.  Above  all,  let  them  not  carp  at  minor  details 
about  miracles ;  but  join  issue  in  the  truth  or  falsehood 
of  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ ;  with  the  truth  of 
which  miracle  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  affirm 
that  Christianity  stands  or  falls. 

*  See  the  number  for  January,  1873 

EXPLANATORY    NOTE. 

The  reader  should  observe  that  this  Lecture  was  composed  from 
the  point  of  view  of  the  unbelievers  of  London,  with  reference  to  the 
special  difficulties  raised  at  the  discussions  at  the  Hall  of  Science. 
I  am  aware  that  it  might  have  been  somewhat  simplified  if  I  had 
added  a  fifth  to  the  four  simple  assumptions  on  which  the  Lecture  is 
based,  which  are  conceded  by  an  overwhelming  majority  of  the  most 
eminent  modern  unbelievers,  viz.,  that  many  of  them  readily  concede 
that  the  original  disciples  of  Jesus  fully  believed  that  they  had  seen 
their  Master  alive  after  His  crucifixion,  but  that  in  entertaining  this 
belief  they  were  the  victims  of  a  delusion.  If,  however,  I  had 
based  my  reasoning  on  this  assumption,  I  should  have  failed  to 
meet  the  difficulties  of  those  for  whose  benefit  the  Lecture  was 
specially  composed ;  and  I  should  have  greatly  weakened  the  cogency 
of  the  proof  of  the  resurrection  as  a  well-attested  fact  of  history.  It 
will  be  seen  by  a  reference  to  p.  245,  that  I  distinctly  recognise  the 
fact  that  many  eminent  modern  unbelievers  do  not  dispute  that  the 
original  followers  of  Jesus  really  believed  in  the  truth  of  His  resur- 
rection. Those,  however,  for  whom  I  was  writing,  are  imder  the 
impression  that  no  contemporaneous  evidence  of  a  really  historical 
character  can  be  adduced  in  proof  of  it.  My  object  has  been  to 
dissipate  this  delusion,  and  to  show  that  we  have  as  strong  an  histori- 
cal attestation  for  the  truth  of  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ,  as  we 
possess  for  any  fact  which  we  have  not  seen  with  our  eyes.  I  there- 
fore confined  myself  to  the  four  simple  assumption-;  with  which  the 
Lecture  opens,  as  being  historical  facts  too  evident  to  be  disputed, 
except  l)y  persons  who  are  incapable  of  appreciating  historical 
evidence  at  all ;  and  from  them  I  have  proved  the  truth  of  this  central 
position  of  the  Christian  faith. 


APPENDIX. 


i  SUBJOIN  the  most  important  passages  in  these  Epistles,  in  which 
reference  is  made  to  the  Resurrection,  with  such  observations  as  are 
necessary  for  pointing  out  their  historical  value. 

Rom.  i.  3-5  : — '*  Concerning  His  Son,  who  was  made  of  the  seed 
of  David  according  to  the  flesh,  and  declared  to  be  the  Son  of  God 
with  power,  according  to  the  Spirit  of  holiness,  by  the  resurrection 
from  the  dead. ''^ 

Here  the  reference,  occurring  as  it  does  at  the  opening  of  the 
epistle,  proves  that  the  writer  was  firmly  persuaded  that  those  to 
whom  he  wrote  were  equally  persuaded  of  the  fact  of  the  resurrec- 
tion as  he  was. 

St.  Paul  concludes  a  long  argument  with  these  words  : — 

Rom  ii.  16  : — **  In  the  day  when  God  shall  judge  the  secrets  of 
men  by  Jesus  Christ,  according  to  my  gospel." 

The  reference  here  is  inferential  and  indirect,  and  therefore  most 
valuable.  The  position  assigned  to  Christ  as  future  Judge,  shows 
that  the  whole  Church  accepted  the  fact  of  His  resurrection  as  one 
beyond  all  question. 

Rom.  iv.  24,  25  : — *'  To  whom  also  it  shall  be  imputed,  if  we 
believe  on  Him  who  raised  up  Jesus  our  Lord  from  the  dead,  who  was 
delivered  for  our  offences,  and  was  raised  again  for  our  justification." 

Such  a  doctrinal  use  of  the  resurrection  proves  that  the  fact  had 
long  been  accepted  by  the  Church,  as  it  would  have  been  impossible 
to  have  used  it  in  this  way  if  it  had  been  a  recent  invention.  Let  it 
be  remembered  that  this  Church  contained  a  Jewish  and  Gentile 
element,  and  had  been  planted  quite  independently  of  the  apostle. 
It  follows,  therefore,  that  the  resurrection  must  have  been  accepted 
as  the  foundation  of  Christianity  by  the  founders  of  this  Church* 


256  Appendix. 

Rom.  V.  10: — "  For  if  when  we  were  enemies,  we  were  reconciled 
to  God  by  the  death  of  His  Son,  much  more  being  reconciled,  we 
shall  be  saved  by  his  life  J' 

The  reference  here  is  incidental,  and  therefore  a  strong  evidence  of 
the  universal  acceptance  of  the  fact. 

Rom.  vi.  3- 1 1 : — Know  ye  not,  that  as  many  of  us  as  were  bap- 
tised into  Jesus  Christ  were  baptised  into  his  death  ?  Therefore  we 
are  buried  with  him  by  baptism  into  death,  that,  like  as  Christ  was 
raised  from  the  dead  by  the  glory  of  the  Father,  even  so  we  also 
should  walk  in  newness  of  life.  For  if  we  have  been  planted  together 
in  the  likeness  of  His  death,  we  shall  be  also  in  the  likeness  of  His 
resurrection.  Knowing  this,  that  our  old  man  is  crucified  with  him, 
that  the  body  of  sin  might  be  destroyed,  that  henceforth  we  should 
not  serve  sin.  For  he  who  is  dead  is  freed  from  sin.  Now  if  we  be 
dead  with  Christ,  we  believe  that  we  shall  also  live  with  Him. 
Knowing  that  Christ  being  raised  from  the  dead  dieth  no  more  ;  death 
hath  no  more  dominion  over  Him.  For  in  that  He  died,  He  died 
unto  sin  once  ;  but  in  that  He  liveth,  He  liveth  unto  God.  Likewise 
reckon  ye  also  yourselves  to  be  dead  indeed  unto  sin,  but  alive 
unto  God,  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord. " 

This  passage  is  one  of  great  importance.  It  refers  to  the  fact  of 
the  resurrection  both  directly,  incidentally,  and  inferentially.  The 
parallel  between  Christ's  death  and  resurrection  as  exhibited  in  bap- 
tism, the  reference  to  its  moral  power  as  a  resurrection  to  holiness 
in  those  who  cordially  accept  the  fact,  and  its  pledge  of  future  life 
hereafter,  all  imply  that  the  belief  in  it,  was  the  very  foundation  of 
that  Christianity  which  had  been  accepted  by  the  Roman  Church, 
and  was  a  part  of  the  original  Christian  teaching  from  which  they 
had  derived  their  faith. 

Rom.  vii.  4  : — *'  Wherefore,  my  brethren,  ye  also  are  become  dead 
to  the  law  by  the  body  of  Christ,  that  ye  should  be  married  to 
another,  even  to  Him  who  is  raised  from  the  dead,  that  we  should 
bring  forth  fruit  unto  God" 

The  apostle's  argument  is  here  very  peculiar,  as  any  one  will  see 
who  reads  the  entire  context.  The  allusion  to  the  resurrection  shows 
that  that  fact  was  never  absent  from  the  writer's  thoughts,  and  proves 
that  he  was  of  opinion  that  it  was  little  less  so  from  those  to  whom 
he  wrote. 

Rom.  viii.  10,  II  : — "And  f  Christ  be  in  you,  the  body  is  dead 
because  of  sin,  but  the  spirit  is  life  because  of  righteousness  ;   for  if 


Appendix.  2$% 

the  spirit  of  Him  f/iat  raised  up  Jesus  from  the  dead  dwell  in  you,  He 
that  raised  up  Christ  from  the  dead  shall  also  quicken  your  mortal 
bodies  by  His  Spirit  that  dwelleth  in  you." 

Rom.  viii.  17  : — "  And  if  children,  then  heirs,  heirs  of  God,  and 
joint  heirs  with  Christ,  if  so  be  that  we  suffer  with  Him,  that  we 
may  also  be  glorified  together.''^ 

Rom.  viii.  33,  34: — "Who  shall  lay  anything  to  the  charge  of 
God's  elect?  It  is  God  that  justifieth.  Who  is  he  that  con- 
demneth?  It  is  Christ  that  died,  yea  rather,  that  is  risen  again, 
who  is  even  at  the  right  hand  of  God,  who  also  maketh  intercession 
for  us." 

These  three  references  are  entirely  incidental.  Nothing  was 
further  from  the  writer's  thoughts  than  the  intention  to  make  direct 
assertions  about  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  He  is  treating  through- 
out the  chapter  on  some  of  the  deepest  subjects  of  Christian  thought. 
Yet  his  references  to  the  resurrection  are  at  once  distinct  and 
natural,  and  prove  that  the  belief  in  it  was  interwoven  into  the 
very  texture  of  his  own  thoughts,  and,  as  he  considered,  into  those 
to  whom  he  wrote. 

Rom.  X.  6-9  : — "  But  the  righteousness  which  is  of  faith  speaketh 
on  this  wise,  Say  not  in  thine  heart.  Who  shall  ascend  into  heaven  ? 
{i.e.,  to  bring  down  Christ  from  above  :)  or,  Who  shall  descend  into 
the  deep?  {i.e.,  to  bring  up  Christ  again  from  the  dead.)  But  what 
saith  it  ?  The  word  is  nigh  thee,  even  in  thy  mouth,  and  in  thine  heart, 
{i.e.,  the  word  of  faith  which  we  preach).  For  if  thou  shalt  confess 
with  thy  mouth  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  shalt  believe  in  thine  heart 
that  God  hath  raised  Bimfrom  the  dead,  thou  shalt  be  saved." 

The  reasoning  in  this  passage  is  difficult,  owing  to  the  fact  that  it 
contains  allusions  to  passages  in  the  Old  Testament,  which  none 
but  those  who  were  familiar  with  them  would  catch  the  meaning  of. 
It  proves  that  the  writer  calculated  that  those  to  whom  he  wrote 
were  very  familiar  with  them.  Of  a  precisely  similar  character  are 
the  two  references  to  the  resurrection,  and  they  would  have  been 
without  meaning,  except  to  persons  who  admitted  their  doctrinal 
value. 

Rom.  xiv.  7-9: — "For  none  of  us  liveth  unto  himself,  and  no 
man  dieth  unto  himself;  for  whether  we  live,  we  live  unto  the 
Lord  ;  and  whether  we  die,  we  die  unto  the  Lord  :  for  to  this  end 
Christ  both  died  and  rose,  that  He  might  be  Lord  both  of  the  dead 
and  living." 

17 


258  Appendix. 

In  the  context  the  apostle  was  speaking  of  the  observance  of  par- 
ticular days,  and  similar  subjects  which  deeply  interested  the  minds  of 
the  Christians  of  that  time.  For  all  questions  of  difficulty  and  duty, 
he  had  one  solution,  and  only  one,  the  relation  in  which  the 
Christian  stood  to  his  risen  Lord.  He  died  and  rose,  that  those  who 
believed  on  Him  might  live  and  die  to  Him.  This  was  the  solution 
of  every  duty  to  the  believer.  It  is  impossible  to  conceive  of  any 
allusion  to  the  resurrection,  which  would  more  plainly  show  its 
all-commanding  influence  on  the  Christian  conscience,  or  its  more 
universal  reception  as  a  fact. 

The  earlier  references  in  the  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  are 
all  incidental  or  inferential.  The  later  ones  are  of  the  most  direct 
character, 

I  Cor.  i.  7,  8  : — **  So  that  ye  come  behind  in  no  gift ;  waiting y^r 
the  coming  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ :  who  shall  also  confirm  you  to 
the  end,  that  ye  maybe  blameless  in  the  day  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 

These  references  to  His  future  coming,  imply  the  prior  acceptance 
of  the  fact  of  His  resurrection.  The  reasoning  of  the  remainder  of 
this  chapter  presupposes  the  same  fact.  Similar  remarks  apply  to 
the  two  following  passages. 

I  Cor.  iv.  5  : — '*  Therefore  judge  nothing  before  the  time,  until 
the  Lord  come,  who  will  bring  to  light  the  *  idden  things  of  dark- 
ness, and  make  manifest  the  counsels  of  the  hearts." 

I  Cor.  v.  4,  5  : — "  In  the  name  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  Vhen 
ye  are  gathered  together,  and  my  spirit,  with  the  power  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  to  deliver  such  an  one  unto  Satan  for  the  de- 
struction of  the  flesh  that  the  spirit  may  be  saved  in  the  day  of  the 
Lord  Jesus. 

I  Cor.  ix.  I,  2  : — "Am  not  I  an  apostle?  am  I  not  free?  have  I 
not  seen  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord  ?  are  ye  not  my  work  in  the  Lord  ? 
If  I  am  not  an  apostle  to  others,  yet  doubtless  I  am  to  you,"  etc. 

The  whole  of  this  chapter  is  addressed  to  the  party  in  this  church 
which  denied  Paul's  right  to  be  an  apostle.  It  is  obvious  that  this  party 
must  have  fully  believed  in  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  as  the  ground 
of  their  Christianity.  Had  it  been  otherwise,  nothing  short  of  mad- 
ness could  have  induced  the  writer  to  write  as  he  has  done  though- 
out  the  entire  chapter. 

I  Cor.  xi.  23-26  : — "  For  I  received  ot  the  Lord  that  which  I 
also  delivered  unto  you,  how  that  the  Lord  Jesus,  the  same  night  in 
which  He  was  betrayed,  took  bread,"  etc.     **  For  as  often  as  ye  eat 


Appendix.  259 

this  bread,  and  drink  this  cup,  ye  do  shew  forth  the  Lord's  death  til 
He  come. " 

Here  we  have  a  direct  account  of  the  institution  of  the  great  rite 
of  the  Christian  Church,  which  was  to  be  celebrated  in  perpetual 
memory  of  Christ's  death.  The  constant  celebration  ot  it  in  the 
Church  of  Christ,  by  a  succession  of  continuously  repeated  acts,  carries 
us  up  to  the  very  period  of  the  crucifixion  by  one  of  the  highest  forms 
of  historical  testimony.  Yet  the  whole  passage  proves  that  while 
this  institution  was  designed  to  preserve  a  perpetual  memory  of  the 
death  of  Christ,  it  was  indissolubly  united  with  a  belief  in  His  resur- 
rection, thus  carrying  up  the  historical  testimony  of  that  event  to 
the  period  directly  following  the  crucifixion. 

I  Cor,  XV.  3-20: — "For  I  delivered  unto  you  first  of  all  that 
which  I  also  received,  how  that  Christ  died  for  our  sins  according  to 
the  Scriptures  ;  and  that  He  was  buried,  and  that  He  rose  again  the 
the  third  day  according  to  the  Scriptures  ;  and  that  He  was  seen  of 
Cephas  ;  then  of  the  twelve ;  after  that,  He  was  seen  of  above  five 
hundred  brethren  at  once  ;  of  whom  the  greater  part  remain  unto 
this  present,  but  some  are  fallen  asleep.  After  that.  He  was  seen  of 
James  ;  then  of  all  the  apostles  ;  and  last  of  all.  He  was  seen  of  m.e, 
as  of  one  born  out  of  due  time.  For  I  am  the  least  of  the  apostles, 
that  am  not  meet  to  be  called  an  apostle,  because  I  persecuted  the 
church  of  God.  Now  if  Christ  be  preached  unto  you  that  he  rose 
from  the  dead,  how  say  some  among  you  that  there  is  no  resurrec- 
tion of  the  dead  ?  But  if  there  is  no  resurrection  of  the  dead, 
then  is  not  Christ  risen.  And  if  Christ  be  not  risen,  then  is  our 
preaching  vain,  and  your  faith  is  also  vain.  Yea,  and  we  are 
found  false  witnesses  of  God  ;  because  we  have  testified  of  God, 
that  He  raised  up  Christ,  whom  He  raised  not  up,  if  so  be  that  the 
dead  rise  not.  For  if  the  dead  rise  not,  then  is  not  Christ  raised. 
And  if  Christ  be  not  raised,  your  faith  is  vain  ;  ye  are  yet  in  your 
sins.  Then  they  also  who  are  fallen  asleep  in  Christ  are  perished. 
If  in  this  life  only  we  have  hope  in  Christ,  we  are  of  all  men  most 
miserable.  But  now  is  Christ  risen  from  the  dead,  and  become  the 
first  fruits  of  them  that  slept." 

I  have  already  remarked  in  the  body  of  the  lecture  on  the  high 
historical  value  of  this  passage.  I  need  not  repeat  what  I  have 
there  said.  I  shall  only  add,  that  it  seems  to  me  impossible  to 
read  it,  and  to  entertain  a  doubt  that  the  fact  of  the  resurrection 
was  not  only  accepted  by  all  the  parties  into  which  this  Church  was 


26o  Appendix, 

divided  ;  but  that  it  was  the  foundation  on  which  the  Church  was 
reconstructed  immediately  after  the  crucifixion. 

2  Cor.  i.  2: — "Grace  be  to  you,  and  peace  from  God  the 
Father,  oxidfrom  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ." 

2  Cor.  ii.  lo  : — "  To  whom  ye  forgive  anything,  I  forgive  also  ; 
for  if  I  forgave  anything  to  whom  I  forgave  it,  for  your  sakes  forgave 
I  it  in  the  person  of  Christ.''^ 

2  Cor.  iv.  lo,  14  : — Always  bearing  about  in  the  body  the  dying  of 
the  Lord  Jesus,  that  the  life  also  of  Jesus  might  be  made  manifest 
in  our  body.  Knowing  that  He  that  raised  up  the  Lord  Jesus  shall 
raise  us  up  also  by  Jesus,  and  shall  present  us  with  you. " 

Here  we  have  a  mixture  of  direct  and  indirect  references,  all 
proving  that  the  fact  of  the  resurrection  was  the  foundation  which 
underlay  all  Christian  thought. 

2  Cor.  V.  13-15  : — "  For  whether  we  be  beside  ourselves,  it  is  to 
God  ;  or  whether  we  be  sober,  it  is  for  your  cause.  For  the  love  of 
Christ  constraineth  us ;  because  we  thus  judge,  that  if  one  died  for 
all,  then  were  all  dead  ;  and  that  He  died  for  all,  that  they  which 
live  should  not  henceforth  live  unto  themselves,  but  unto  Him  that 
died  for  them,  and  rose' again,'^  etc.,  etc. 

In  this  passage  the  resurrection  of  Christ  is  set  before  us  as  the 
foundation  on  which  Christian  self-sacrifice  rests,  and  as  the  new 
great  spiritual  power  which  has  been  created  by  Christianity. 

2  Cor.  xi,  3-5  : — "But  I  fear,  lest  by  any  means,  as  the  serpent 
beguiled  Eve  through  his  subtilty,  so  your  minds  should  be  cor- 
rupted from  the  simplicity  that  is  in  Christ.  For  if  he  that  cometh 
preacheth  another  Jesus,  whom  we  have  not  preached ;  or  if  ye 
receive  another  spirit,  which  ye  have  not  received,  or  another  gospel, 
which  ye  have  not  accepted,  ye  might  well  bear  with  him.  For  I 
suppose  that  I  was  not  a  whit  behind  the  very  chiefest  apostles," 
etc.,  etc. 

This  passage  is  a  very  remarkable  one,  and  the  argument  is  carried 
on  throughout  the  remainder  of  the  epistle.  In  it  the  apostle  comes 
face  to  face  with  the  party  in  this  Church  in  opposition  to  himself. 
The  careful  reader  will  see  that  he  very  often  uses  the  strongest  irony 
in  dealing  with  them.  Yet,  in  the  passage  I  have  cited,  he  distinctly 
avers  that  the  Jesus  whom  they  preached  differed  in  no  substantial 
point  of  historical  outline  from  his  own.  The  reader  should  observe 
that  by  the  expression  "He  that  cometh,"  the  apostle  evidently 
means  his  Jewish  opponents,  who  professed  to  represent  the  views  of 


Appendix.  261 

the  apostles  of  the  circumcision.  We  have  here  a  distinct  testimony 
that  they  must  have  believed  from  the  first  in  the  resurrection.  If  it 
had  not  been  so,  St.  Paul  would  have  placed  himself  in  the  power 
of  his  opponents,  when  this  letter  was  read  to  the  Church. 

2  Cor.  xii.  8,  9  : — "  For  this  thing  I  besought  the  Lord  thrice, 
that  it  might  depart  from  me.  And  Ife  said  unto  me,  My  grace  is 
sufficient  for  thee :  for  my  strength  is  made  perfect  in  weakness.  Most 
gladly  therefore  will  I  rather  glory  in  my  infirmities,  that  the  power 
of  Christ  may  rest  upon  me. 

2  Cor.  xiii.  3,  4  : — Since  ye  seek  a  proof  of  Christ  speaking  in  me 
which  toward  you  is  not  weak,  but  is  mighty  in  you.  For  though 
He  was  crucified  through  weakness,  yet  Heliveth  by  the  power  of  Cod. 
For  we  also  are  weak  in  Him,  but  we  shall  live  with  Him  by  the 
power  of  God  toward  you. " 

Nothing  can  be  more  incidental  than  such  allusions. 

The  first  and  second  chapters  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  con- 
tain the  strongest  historical  proof  that  the  belief  in  the  resurrection 
of  Jesus  Christ  constituted  the  one  sole  and  only  ground  of  the 
renewed  life  of  the  Church.  To  quote  them  partially  would  weaken 
the  force  of  the  historical  evidence  which  they  supply.  You  must 
carefully  read  them  for  yourselves.  I  will,  however,  enunciate  in 
as  many  distinct  propositions  the  facts  which  they  assert,  and  the 
inferences  following  from  them, 

1.  St.  Paul  begins  by  distinctly  affirming  that  the  fact  of  the 
resurrection  was  the  ground  of  his  claim  to  the  apostleship. 

2.  A  party  existed  in  the  Galatian  Churches  who  were  most 
adverse  to  his  claims. 

3.  This  party  did  not  dispute  the  fact  of  our  Lord's  resurrection. 

4.  They  professed  to  represent  the  views  of  the  Churches  in  Judaea, 
and  those  of  their  chief  men. 

5.  St.  Paul  professed  to  have  derived  his  gospel,  not  from  huLian 
teaching,  but  by  express  revelation  from  Jesus  Christ. 

6.  His  belief  in  the  resurrection  as  a  fact,  converted  him  from  a 
persecutor  of  the  Church  into  a  preacher  of  the  gospel. 

7.  Three  years  after  his  conversion  he  visited  Peter  and  James  at 
Jerusalem  for  a  period  of  fifteen  days,  but  saw  none  of  the  o  :her 
apostles.  These  two  apostles  must  therefore  have  agreed  with  Paul 
in  believing  in  the  resurrection  as  a  fact. 

8.  Fifteen  years  after  he  visited  the  Church  at  Jerusalem,  and  ex- 
plained to  its  chiefs  the  gospel  which  he    preached  among  the 


262  Appendix. 

Gentiles  ;  and  received  the  approbation  of  James,  Peter,  and  John, 
the  three  most  important  members  of  that  Church. 

9.  The  Church  at  Jerusalem  must  therefore  have  believed  in  the 
fact  of  the  resurrection  immediately  after  the  crucifixion. 

10.  The  fundamental  facts  of  Christianity  were  accepted  alike  by 
the  different  parties  in  this  Church.  The  ground  of  their  disagree- 
ment respected  not  the  facts  themselves,  but  the  doctrinal  inferences 
to  be  drawn  from  them. 

11.  The  differences  which  arose  in  the  Church  at  Antioch  were 
respecting  the  obligations  of  Gentile  Christians  to  observe  the  Jewish 
rites,  and  had  nothing  to  do  with  fundamental  facts. 

12.  The  words  which  St.  Paul  addressed  to  St.  Peter  prove  that 
both  apostles  were  at  agreement  as  to  the  fact  of  the  resurrection,  and 
the  Churches  of  Antioch  and  Galatia  with  them.  The  conclusion 
of  them  is  very  remarkable,  * '  I  am  crucified  with  Christ :  never- 
theless I  live,  yet  not  I,  but  Christ  liveth  in  me ;  and  the  life  which 
I  now  five  in  the  flesh  I  live  by  the  faith  of  the  Son  of  God,  who 
loved  me,  and  gave  Himself  for  me." 

Each  of  the  subsequent  chapters  contains  incidental  and  inferential 
references  to  the  resurrection  as  the  common  belief  of  St.  Paul,  and 
of  those  to  whom  he  wrote,  of  the  same  nature  as  those  which  I  have 
already  deduced  from  the  Romans  and  Corinthians. 


THE  MORAL  TEACHING  OF  THE  NEW 
TESTAMENT. 

BY  THE 

REV.    HENRY  ALLON,   D.D. 


The  Moral  Teaching  of  the  Nezv 
Testament. 


CHRISTIANITY  is  distinctively  a  system  of  religious 
faith  and  life.  It  therefore  differs  from  mere  sys- 
tems of  philosophy,  which  give  a  scientific  account  of  the 
mental  and  moral  faculties,  and  of  such  obligations  as 
may  be  deduced  from  them.  It  differs  also  from  mere 
ethical  systems,  which  define  right  and  wrong,  demon- 
strate their  principles  and  sanctions,  and  formulate  them 
in  precepts.  It  differs  also  from  systems  of  social  economy, 
political,  municipal,  or  domestic,  which  deal  with  the 
relationships,  duties,  and  interests  of  social  life. 

It  is  not  easy  to  express  the  difference  in  exact  defini- 
tion ;  inasmuch  as  Christianity  not  only  covers  and  controls 
all  these,  as  parts  of  universal  life, — but  these  are  elements 
of  Christianity — they  intersect  and  pervade  each  other. 
Religion  claims  to  be  the  supreme  philosophy  of  man's 
moral  nature,  the  supreme  law  of  his  moral  obligation, 
and  the  supreme  good  of  his  social  life.  But  the  converse 
is  not  always  true  :  while  philosophy,  morality,  and  social 
economy  must  always  enter  as  constituent  elements  into 
a  true  religion,  religion  does  not  always  enter  into  them. 
A  man  may  be  an  acute  philosopher,  a  pure  moralist, 


266     The  Moral  Teaching  of  the  New  Testament, 

and  a  benevolent  political  economist,  and  yet  both 
practically  and  formally  reject  not  only  Christianity,  but 
every  form  of  the  theism  which  is  the  essence  of  all 
religion.  Systems  of  philosophy,  of  ethics,  and  of  social 
economy  are  propounded,  from  which  religion  is  formally 
excluded.  The  philosopher,  moreover,  finds  his  end  in 
the  determination  of  scientific  truth  ;  the  moralist  in  the 
determination  of  ethical  virtue  j  the  social  economist  in 
the  well-being  of  the  commonweal.  Each  avowedly 
stops  short  of  the  end  of  the  religious  apostle.  We  think, 
that  without  religion  neither  can  attain  to  supreme  truth 
and  excellency,  even  in  his  own  recognised  sphere ;  but 
the  ends  contemplated  are  formally  different,  and  as  a 
matter  of  fact  men  eminent  in  each  disavow  and  reject 
the  truth  and  influence  of  religion. 

We  have,  therefore,  to  find  some  definition  ot  religion 
which  will  distinguish  it  from  both  philosophy,  morality, 
and  social  economy.  Will  it  suffice  for  our  present 
popular  and  practical  purpose  if  we  designate  religion  as 
being,  in  its  fundamental  principles,  recognised  relations 
between  the  human  soul  and  God,  and  in  its  practical  work- 
ings the  effort  of  the  soul  to  realize  its  true  relations  to  God? 

A  religious  man  recognises  God  as  the  author,  the  ruler, 
and  the  supreme  good  of  his  life,  and  he  adjusts  all  the 
principles,  activities,  and  affections  of  his  life  to  this 
recognised  relationship.  Neither  the  philosopher,  the 
moralist,  nor  the  social  economist  necessarily  recognises 
God  at  all.  Even  the  moralist,  whose  science  and  aim 
the  most  nearly  approach  those  of  the  religious  man,  is 
ruled  by  mere  moral  distinctions,  the  consciousness  of 
right  and  wrong. 

The  distinction  comes  out  more  clearly  when  we  speak 
of  the  pure  science  of  each  domain.    The  science  of  the 


The  Moral  Teaching  of  the  New  Testament.     267 

religious  life  is  theology,  a  doctrine  concerning  the  supreme 
God,  His  nature,  relations,  and  claims ;  which  determines 
all  the  religious  man's  notions  of  the  universe,  enters  vitally 
into  his  conceptions  of  right  and  wrong,  and  practically 
controls  all  the  personal  and  social  actions  and  affections 
of  his  life.  The  science  of  the  moralist  is  ethics,  intrinsic 
right  and  wrong,  the  nature  and  practical  methods  of  virtue. 

Religion,  therefore,  necessarily  includes  philosophy, 
morality,  and  social  economy,  although  these  do  not 
necessarily  include  religion.  Starting  from  the  funda- 
mental assumption  of  a  personal  God,  religion  affirms, 
first,  that  that  there  can  be  no  adequate  philosophy  of 
human  nature  that  does  not  take  into  account  j:he  rela- 
tions between  the  personal  soul  and  the  personal  God ; — 
next,  that  the  ultimate  root  and  supreme  inspiration  ot 
all  true  morality  is  to  be  found  in  these  relations  of  the 
soul  to  God; — and  next,  that  in  the  manifold  social 
relations  of  life  there  is  no  influence  so  purifying,  so 
elevating,  so  benevolent,  and  so  potent  as  the  influence 
of  the  religious  sentiment. 

Christianity  therefore  is  bound  to  give  an  account  ot 
itself.  First,  as  a  theology.  Can  it,  to  scientific  and 
religious  questioners,  justify  its  doctrine  of  the  personal 
God,  and  its  asserted  revelation  of  His  character  and  will 
through  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  as  described  in  the  New 
Testament  ?  Next,  as  a  moral  philosophy.  Can  it  justify 
its  teachings  and  its  influence  by  the  actual  phenomena 
of  human  nature  \  and  can  it  establish  its  claim  to  be  the 
supreme  exponent  of  the  moral  life  of  men?  Next,  as  an 
ethical  system.  Can  it  make  it  clear  that  its  distinctive 
principles  and  dogmas,  precepts  and  influences,  are  in 
harmony  with  the  highest  morality,  and  conducive  to  the 
purest  and  noblest  moral  virtues  that  human  nature  can 


268     The  Moral  Teaching  of  the  New  Testament. 

attain  ?  And  next,  as  an  economy  of  social  life.  Can  it 
prove  that  wherever  its  principles  and  teachings  are  acted 
upon,  social  evils  of  all  kinds  are  ameliorated,  and  men 
in  their  social  relations  realize  a  purer  righteousness,  a 
nobler  philanthropy,  and  a  greater  happiness  than  any 
other  system  produces  ? 

We  think  it  can  ;  and  that  nothing  is  more  easy  than 
the  historic  demonstration;  nay,  we  are  constrained  to  say, 
that,  if  in  each  of  these  departments  it  could  not  prove 
itself  to  be  the  supreme  truth,  the  supreme  virtue,  and 
the  supreme  social  good,  its  entire  claim  would  be 
invalidated.  It  is  not  an  option,  whether  or  not  we  will 
submit  Christianity  to  these  tests  \  its  claim  necessitates 
them.  If  there  be  any  higher  philosophy  of  human  nature, 
that  is  the  true  theology ;  if  there  be  any  nobler  ethical 
teaching,  or  any  more  powerful  moral  influence,  that  is  the 
true  religion  ;  and  if  there  be  any  more  beneficial  and  con- 
straining law  of  social  life,  that  is  the  true  order  of  God. 
Either  Christianity  is  this,  or  it  is  not  from  God,  the 
supreme  wisdom,  purity,  and  love ;  and  if  Christianity  be 
not  from  God,  its  claim  to  be  so  is  so  explicit  and  so 
absolute,  and  its  pretensions  are  so  inordinate,  that  it 
must  be  denounced  as  the  greatest  imposture  of  history. 

I  have  to  deal  now  with  only  the  moral  test  of  Chris- 
tianity ;  to  show  that,  under  all  conditions  of  human  life, 
the  moral  character  of  its  dogmas  and  influences  is 
supreme  over  every  system  of  human  thought.  And  I 
shall  apply  this  moral  test  practically  rather  than  scienti- 
fically, and  ask,  what  are  the  moral  character  and 
influence  of  Christianity  as  a  system  of  religious  thought 
and  life  according  to  the  teachings  of  the  New  Testament, 
and  as  illustrated  by  the  eflect  of  these  teachings  upon 
Christian  nations  and  Christian  men? 


The  Moral  Teaching  of  the  New  Testament.     269 

Whatever  points  of  the  Christian  system  I  may  touch, 
my  only  use  of  them  will  be  to  test  their  moral  bearings. 
With  their  historical,  scientific,  or  theological  apologetics, 
I  do  not  deal.  Whether  true  or  false,  I  shall,  for  the  pur- 
poses ot  this  lecture,  assume  the  Christian  system  of  the 
New  Testament  writers,'  and  try  to  estimate  the  moral 
value  of  their  idea. 

First,  I  shall  offer  some  remarks  on  the  general  prin- 
ciples and  conditions  of  Christian  ethics. 

Secondly,  Test  the  moral  value  of  certain  particular 
elements  of  Christian  teaching. 

I.  With  respect  to  the  general  principles  and  conditions 
of  Christian  ethics,  I  remark — 

I.  That  the  moral  sentiment  of  human  nature  has  two 
necessary  relations  to  Christianity. 

First.  To  this  moral  sentiment  every  religious  system 
must  ultimately  appeal.  Every  spiritual  or  moral 
appeal  which  demands  our  obedience,  worship,  and  love, 
must  necessarily  justify  itself  to  our  spiritual  and  moral 
nature.  No  religious  system  can  stand  on  the  ground  of 
mere  external  authority..  In  the  very  nature  of  things 
we  cannot  give  faith,  moral  obedience,  and  love,  to 
any  system  that  does  not  commend  itself  to  our 
moral  consciousness.  No  teaching  of  the  Bible,  no 
element  of  Christianity,  can  take  religious  hold  upon  me, 
save  by  securing  the  assent  of  my  moral  conscience.  It 
must  approve  itself  as  true  to  my  sense  of  truth,  and 
as  good  to  my  sense  of  goodness.  I  cannot,  through  the 
intrinsic  qualities  of  my  moral  nature,  receive  a  religious 
system  so  as  to  become  in  virtue  of  it  a  religious  man,  on 
any  mere  external  authority  whatever.  No  mere  evidence 
of  miracle,  or  prophecy,  or  divine  inspiration,  or  divine 
origin  or  authority,  can  make  my  religious  nature  accept 


2/0     TJu  Moral  Teaching  of  the  New  Testament. 

• 
any  system  of  theology  or  morals.  If  God  were  audibly  to 

speak  to  me  from  heaven,  the  utmost  effect  would  be  to 
convince  my  understanding  of  the  truth  of  what  was  thus 
attested.  I  might  submit  as  to  an  authority  that  could 
not  be  gainsayed,  I  might  accept  the  theological  teaching 
as  true,  just  as  a  man  ignorant  of  mathematics  might,  on 
the  authority  of  Sir  Isaac  Newton,  accept  the  Binomial 
theorem  ;  but  the  acceptance  of  the  former  would  no  more 
make  me  a  religious  man,  than  the  acceptance  of  the  latter 
would  make  me  a  mathematician.  Before  a  revelation  can 
become  a  religion  to  me,  its  moral  character  must  convince 
my  religious  consciousness,  and  engage  my  religious 
sympathy.  And  this  applies  not  only  to  revelation  as  a 
whole,  but  to  each  separate  statement  of  it.  No  fact  or 
doctrine  of  the  Bible  can  be  a  religious  teaching  to  me, 
unless  it  approves  itself  to  my  religious  conscience. 
Facts  may  be  stated,  the  religious  character  of  which 
may  be  to  me  obscure,  or  apparently  contradictory,  and 
I  may  accept  them  as  true  in  virtue  of  the  authority 
that  affirms  them ;  but  they  are  of  no  religious  value 
to  me;  and  in  accepting  them  I  must  believe  that, 
when  fully  understood,  they  will  be  found  in  harmony 
,  with  my  own  moral  conscience.  There  cannot  be  two 
moralities,  one  in  God,  another  in  man  ;  eveiything  that 
is  true  must,  when  fully  understood,  approve  itself  to  my 
moral  conscience.  This  therefore  is  the  ultimate  test  ol 
Christianity.  If  its  teachings  do  not  justi%  themselves  to 
our  religious  conscience — when  that  is,  it  is  earnestly  ex- 
cited, and  desirous  of  right — they  are  either  misconceived 
or  untrue.  This  indeed  is  the  glory  of  Christianity  as 
Christ  taught  it — "  Every  one  that  is  of  the  truth  heareth 
my  words ; "  and  as  Paul  preached  it, — "  commending 
ourselves  to  every  man's  conscience  in  the  sight  of  God." 


The  Moral  Teaching  of  the  New  Testament.    271 

The  second  necessary  relation  of  the  moral  sentiment 
of  human  nature  to  Christianity  is,  that  the  final  cause  of 
every  true  religious  system  must  be  righteousness — per- 
sonal virtue— practical  goodness.  It  may  seek  more 
than  this,  but  it  must  include  this.  Christianity,  for  ex- 
ample, includes  in  its  conception  of  righteousness,  right 
conduct  and  feeling  towards  God,  personal  duty,  worship 
and  love,  the  sentiment  and  character  that  we  designate 
piety.  But  this  does  not  diminish  the  sentiment  of  per- 
sonal and  social  virtue ;  rather  does  it  increase  it  by  ad- 
ditional and  cogent  sanctions;  it  makes  morality  an 
obligation  of  piety,  right  doing  to  man  a  duty  to  God. 

It  is  quite  true  that  sometimes  theological  notions  or 
pietistic  sentiments  have  been  so  perverted  as  that  the 
sentiment  of  piety  has  been  strong  and  fervid,  while 
the  sentiment  of  morality  has  been  very  feeble  and 
loose.  But  abnormal  developments  are  characteristic  of 
every  system ;  and  in  Christianity  this  has  always  been 
abnormal,  and  has  been  uniformly  repudiated  by  the 
religious  sentiment  itself.  Thus  our  Lord  denounced 
those  who  said,  "  Lord,  Lord,  and  did  not  the  things  that 
He  commanded  them."  And  the  Apostle  Paul  vehe- 
mently protested  against  the  immoral  perversion  of  his 
doctrines  of  grace,  represented  by  the  phrase,  "Let  us  do 
evil,  that  good  may  come ;"  or,  '*  Let  us  sin,  that  grace  may 
abound."  And  uniformly  the  mysticism  that  has  merged 
morality  in  religion,  practical  duty  in  sentimental  pietism, 
even  when  exemplified  in  such  saintly  men  as  Eckart  and 
Tauler,  has  failed  to  commend  its  pseudo-spiritualism  to 
the  common  religious  sense  of  the  community.  The 
pestiferous  monasticism  which  was  one  form  of  this,  and 
which  has  filled  so  large  a  place  in  the  history  of  the 
Church,  so  far  from  being  a  disparagement  of  morality,  was 


272     The  Moral  Teaching  of  the  Neiv  Testament, 

the  product  of  a  morbid  intensity  of  the  moral  sentiment. 
To  avoid  moral  contamination  in  the  lawful  ways  of  life, 
men  and  women  secluded  themselves  from  their  whole- 
some discipline,  and  soon  developed  evils  far  more 
erroneous — they  became  immoral  through  mistaken  moral 
methods  of  their  own. 

The  Antinonianism  of  modern  church  life,  again,  has 
been  but  an  exceptional  and  transient  element  in  it; 
and  has  nowhere  excited  a  protest  and  an  antipathy  so 
great  as  in  the  Church  itself  While  the  huge  corruptions 
of  sacerdotal  hierarchies,  like  those  of  the  Greek  and  the 
Roman  Churches ;  the  unfaithfulness  of  almost  every 
Protestant  Church;  and  the  moral  inconsistencies  of  indi- 
vidual Christian  men  and  women,  are  not  only  admitted 
apostacies  from  the  New  Testament  dogma  and  ethics, 
but  they  attest  the  presence  and  power  of  the  moral 
sentiment  in  Christianity  by  the  vehemence  of  the  protest 
and  the  emphasis  of  the  condemnation  they  provoke.  No 
candid  opponent  of  Christianity  will  confound  palpable 
unfaithfulness  of  the  professors  of  a  religious  system  with 
the  system  itself. 

It  is  the  universal  acknowledgment  of  Christian 
Churches,  and  of  Christian  men,  that  the  final  cause  of 
all  theological  dogma,  of  all  religious  cultus,  of  creed,  of 
fellowship,  of  ritual,  is  personal  practical  righteousness. 
Other  things  are  sometimes  contended  for  in  passionate 
forgetfulness  of  this,  never  in  denial  of  it. 

Few  persons  have  assailed  Christian  dogma  with  more 
vehemence,  perhaps  it  might  be  said  unfairness,  than  Mr. 
Matthew  Arnold.  Christian  apologists  have  not  been 
slow  to  repel  his  assaults,  but  almost  uniformly  they  have 
rejoiced  in  his  emphatic  demand  and  intense  yearning  for 
righteousness.  It  is  the  key-note  of  his  polemic*  He 
*  Literature  and  Dogma. 


The  Moral  Teaching  of  the  New  Testament     273 

conceives  that  the  prominence  given  to  Christian  dogma, 
that  the  notion  of  a  personal  God  even,  are  inimical  to 
the  "tendency  that  makes  for  righteousness,"  and  in  the 
name  of  righteousness  he  ruthlessly  discards  them,  and 
holds  them  up  to  ridicule.  The  Bible,  he  admits,  is  the 
most  intensely  righteous  book  in  the  world ;  Jesus  Christ 
is  the  most  perfect  ideal  of  righteousness.  "  The  Bible 
has  such  power  for  teaching  righteousness,  that  even  to 
those  who  come  to  it  with  all  sorts  of  false  notions  about 
the  God  of  the  Bible,  it  yet  teaches  righteousness,  and 
fills  them  with  the  love  of  it." 

But  the  notion  of  a  personal  God,  he  says,  is  not  verifi- 
able. These  old  Hebrew  writers  did  not  mean  it ;  they 
meant  only  in  a  vivid  way  to  express  "  a  power  not  our- 
selves which  makes  for  righteousness."  Righteousness, 
he  says,  is  the  most  important  of  all  things.  "The  object 
of  religion  is  conduct,"  and  conduct  has  to  do  with  "three- 
fourths  of  human  life."  In  this  estimate  of  righteous- 
ness we  are  heartily  at  one  with  him,  as  also  in  his 
estimate  of  the  Bible  as  teaching  and  promoting  it  above 
all  other  books  in  the  world.  From  Genesis  to  Revela- 
tion this  is  its  constant  idea.  We  agree  with  him  also 
when  he  says  that  "  the  true  meaning  of  religion  is  not 
simple  morality,  but  morality  touched  by  emotion ;  and 
this  new  elevation  and  inspiration  of  morality  is  well 
marked  by  the  word  righteousness."  Now  if  the  recog- 
nition of  the  personal  God  of  the  Bible,  if  the  funda- 
mental dogmas  of  the  Christian  system,  were  not  above 
all  things  the  inspiration  of  "  the  sentiment  that  makes 
for  righteousness,"  Mr.  Arnold  would  be  right.  The 
supreme  idea  of  religion  is  righteousness ;  nothing  taught 
as  religion  can  be  objectively  true  that  does  not  supremely 
make  for  righteousness.  Mr.  Arnold^s  mistake  is  in  sup- 
posing that  men  fail  of  righteousness  because  of  their  behef 


274     ^  h^  Moral  Teaching  of  the  New  Testament. 

in  a  personal  God,  and  in  Christian  dogmas,  instead  of 
in  spite  of  them,  and  because  of  the  strength  and  selfish- 
ness of  human  passion.  In  order  to  attain  to  righteous- 
ness he  rejects  its  most  cogent  constraints.  What  is  there 
so  calculated  to  touch  morality  with  emotion,  to  give  it 
dynamic  power,  as  the  Christian  recognition  of  the  per- 
sonal God  as  a  loving  Father,  and  of  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  as  a  self-sacrificing  Redeemer  ?  Were  the  Apostle 
Paul  living  to  characterize  such  speculations,  he  would 
need  only  to  make  a  fresh  appHcation  of  his  own  words, 
"  Israel,  which  followed  after  the  law  of  righteousness, 
hath  not  attained  to  the  law  of  righteousness.  Wherefore? 
Because  they  sought  it  not  by  faith,  but  as  it  were  by  the 
works  of  the  law.  For  they,  being  ignorant  of  God's 
righteousness,  and  going  about  to  establish  their  own 
righteousness,  have  not  submitted  themselves  unto  the 
righteousness  of  God.  For  Christ  is  the  end  of  the  law 
for  righteousness  to  every  one  that  believeth." 

2.  The  reason  and  root  of  all  morality  is  the  moral 
element  which  is  an  essential  part  of  our  nature.  The 
consciousness  of  right  and  wrong  is  an  inseparable  part 
of  our  self- consciousness.  We  need  say  no  more  than 
this — perhaps  we  cannot.  Whatever  my  genesis,  what- 
ever my  destiny,  I  am  consciously  a  moral  being,  and 
distinguish  between  good  and  evil.  Hence  I  am  con- 
sciously free  to  choose  between  good  and  evil.  My  will 
exercises  itself  in  the  domain  of  moral  things.  Where 
there  is  no  freedom,  there  can  be  no  morality.  The  feel- 
ing that  I  ought  to  do,  necessarily  implies  that  I  can  do. 
If,  therefore,  freedom  of  the  will  be  denied,  all  possible 
moral  conduct  is  denied.  And  it  is  singular  how  different 
perversions  of  truth  concur  in  this.  The  "  Fate  "  of  the  old 
Pagan  mythologists,  the  predestinarianism  of  Calvinistic 


The  Moral  Teaching  of  the  New  Testament.     275 

theology,  the  physical  necessity  of  modem  Positivism,  all 
concur  in  representing  man  as  the  creature  of  mere  cir- 
cumstances, and  character  as  the  involuntary  issue  of  in- 
evitable laws.  All,  therefore,  degrade  human  nature  from 
the  moral  dignity  of  its  freedom ;  shut  it  up  to  one  form 
or  other  of  necessity.  But  against  one  and  all  of  these 
our  morale  consciousness  rises  up  in  irrepressible  self- 
assertion.  I  feel  that  I  am  free ;  and  against  this  con- 
sciousness argument  is  powerless.  My  conscience  con- 
demns me  as  guilty  when  I  do  wrong,  approves  me  as 
righteous  when  I  do  right ;  and  against  this  consciousness 
all  the  subtle  metaphysics  of  philosophy  and  theology  are 
powerless. 

3.  We  cannot  fully  appreciate  the  transcendent  excel- 
lence and  power  of  Christian  morality  without  some 
acquaintance  with  the  ethics  of  other  systems. 

For  instance,  what  may  be  called  the  empirical  ethics 
of  peoples  like  the  Chinese,  whose  political  and  social 
virtue  is  purely  utilitarian,  and  seems  to  be  utterly  desti- 
tute of  the  higher  ideas  and  inspirations  of  philosophy 
and  religion, — an  elaborate  world-order,  expressing  itself 
in  rules  according  to  the  wisdom  of  the  ancients,  without 
any  idea  of  moral  perfection  to  be  striven  after.  Without 
spiritual  source  or  goal,  it  is  a  mere  social  expediency ; 
its  only  golden  age  the  wisdom  of  the  past. 

Or  the  Pantheistic  morality  of  Buddhism,  the  supreme 
good  of  which  is  not  active  benevolence,  but  passive  sur- 
render ;  not  individual  perfection,  but  universal  absorption 
into  an  all-pervading  essence. 

Or  the  morality  which  the  Persian  system  represents — 
two  eternal  antagonistic  principles  of  good  and  evil — 
which,  although  a  nobler  moral  conception  than  that  of 
Buddhism,  inasmuch  as   it   solicits   men   to   an  active 


276     The  Moral  Teaching  of  the  New  Testament. 

struggle  with  evil,  is  yet  defective  in  sanctifying  urgency ; 
inasmuch  as  the  evil  against  which  he  is  called  to  struggle 
is  an  external  evil,  part  of  the  world-order,  not  an  inward 
or  personal  one.  It  is  a  conflict  with  Ahriman,  not  with 
his  own  heart. 

Or  the  ethics  of  classical  philosophy,  first  developed  in 
Greece,  and  culminating  in  Plato  and  Aristode  ;  which,  in 
diversified  forms,  is  simply  aesthetic  development,  not 
personal  regeneration  and  perfection.  It  is  the  ideal 
morality  of  perfect  knowledge,  according  to  Socrates; 
the  ideal  morality  of  perfect  happiness,  according  to  the 
Cyreniacs  and  Epicureans  ;  the  ideal  morality  of  perfect 
beauty,  according  to  Plato ;  the  ideal  morality  of  a  perfect 
symmetry,  or  the  golden  mean,  according  to  Aristotle. 

It  is  enough  to  name  these  various  ancient  systems  in 
order  to  show  their  infinite  inferiority  in  conception  and 
dynamic  force  to  the  moral  system  of  Christ.  The 
highest  point  of  pagan  morality  was  attained  by  Socrates, 
Plato,  and  Aristotle.  And  yet  who  can  remember  their 
teachings  concerning  the  relations  of  the  sexes, — the  com- 
munity of  wives  advocated  by  Plato,  the  badinage  about 
courtesans  which  abounds  in  the  conversations  of  Socrates, 
in  language  often  worthy  of  Sodom  itself, — without  feeling 
the  divine  purity  of  Him  who  lifted  up  the  woman  who 
was  a  sinner,  insulted  even  by  the  comparison  ?  Who  can 
recal  the  cruel  and  oppressive  social  institutions  advo- 
cated by  Plato  and  Aristotle,  such  as  infanticide  and 
slavery,*  without  feeling  that  the  very  first  principles 
of  social  morality  were  imperfectly  apprehended  by  him  ? 
Who  can  think  of  the  exaltation  of  suicide  to  the  dignity 
of   a   heroic  virtue  by  the  Stoics   and   others,    without 

*  The  first  formal  philosophical  theory  and  defence  of  slavery  is 
contained  in  Aristotle's  Politics. 


TJie  Moral  Teaching  of  the  New  Testajnent.     277 

feeling  what  an  ignominy  was  put  upon  life  as  its  crown  ? 
Zeno  hanged  himself  because  he  had  broken  a  finger; 
Cleanthes  starved  himself  to  death  because  his  gums 
became  tender.  Suicide  was  the  crown  put  upon  some  ot 
the  noblest  virtues  of  Pagan  life  by  men  like  Cato,  Brutus, 
and  Seneca.  What  a  cowardly  contrast  to  the  moral 
heroism  of  Christian  teaching  and  example  ! 

Hqw  mournfully  Pagan  ethics  culminated  in  the  formal 
subordination,  and  at  length  the  abandonment  of  the 
moral  idea  in  Epicureanism  and  Skepticism,  need  not  be 
told.  It  is  enough  to  suggest  its  contrast  with  the  Chris- 
tian apotheosis. 

4.  Christian  morals  have  a  history  ot  their  OAvn  which 
must  be  discriminated.  The  moral  sentiment  of  every 
class  or  cultus  has  necessarily  its  subjective  development. 
It  is  not  enough  to  possess  an  objective  moral  system. 
Actual  moral  result,  as  embodied  in  feeling  and  life,  de- 
mands subjective  perception  and  sympathy ;  and  these 
are  developed  by  education.  Moral  defects  of  Christian 
people  are  not  necessarily  chargeable  upon  their  Christian 
teaching.  The  higher  the  moral  teaching,  the  more  incon- 
gruous shortcoming  appears.  And  is  not  this  the  explan- 
ation, first,  of  the  high  expectation  of  moral  excellency 
which  is  instinctively  looked  for  in  Christian  people  ;  and 
next,  of  the  eager  exultation  with  which  their  defects  are 
paraded  ? 

The  moral  sentiment  of  Christian  men  develops  through 
successive  ages  a  truer  perception  of  the  meaning  and 
spirit  of  Christ's  inculcations,  and  a  more  elevated  and 
sympathetic  conformity  to  it.  By  a  process  of  action  and 
reaction — Christian  truth  inciting  the  moral  conscience, 
and  the  purified  heart  more  clearly  discerning  Christian 
truth — communities  are  being  transformed.     It  may  be 


2yS     The  Moral  Teaching  of  the  New  Testament. 

taken  as  a  conclusive  proof  of  the  divine  origin  of  New 
Testament  truth,  that  it  is  ever  impelling  the  moral  progress 
of  those  who  receive  it,  and  that  no  attainable  degree  of 
moral  progress  exhausts  it.  It  is  as  supreme  over  the  moral 
sentiment  of  this  nineteenth  century  as  it  was  over  that 
of  the  first.  Our  moral  consciousness  has  ever  to  confess, 
"  Not  that  I  have  already  attained,  or  am  already  perfect, 
but  I  follow  after."  Both  the  formal  knowledge  and  the 
spiritual  sentiment  of  Christian  people  are  ever  develop- 
ing. For  example,  the  sentiments  about  war  and  slavery, 
about  penal  laws,  and  about  the  succour  of  the  ignorant, 
wretched,  and  the  oppressed,  which  are  the  accepted 
standards  of  one  generation,  are  far  below  those  of  the 
next.  We  are  ever  outgrowing  our  own  conceptions, 
advancing  upon  our  attainments,  developing  our  piety, 
our  morality,  our  humaneness  into  more  spiritual  forms, 
broader  charities,  more  refined  sympathies.  A  couple  of 
centuries  ago  pious  men  could  burn  their  fellow-Christians 
at  the  stake  for  the  good  of  their  souls ;  a  century  ago 
it  gave  no  compunction  to  English  Christian  minis- 
ters to  be  slave  owners;  a  dozen  years  ago  American 
Christian  ministers  could  utter  from  the  pulpit  elaborate 
apologies  for  slavery ;  many  men  now  living  have  suffered 
fine  and  imprisonment  for  their  religious  opinions.  Thank 
God,  we  have  changed  all  that.  The  simple  develop- 
ment of  Christian  sentiment  has  rendered  the  idea  of 
such  things  abhorrent. 

Such  development  of  Christian  morality  is  simply  in 
harmony  with  every  other  human  development, — whether 
in  politics,  sciences,  social  life,  or  personal  conviction 
and  feehng.  In  every  science,  objective  data  are  better 
understood,  and  practical  applications  of  them  are  ex- 
tended. 


The  Moral  Teaching  of  the  New  Testament.     279 

Hence,  there  is  much  in  theological  science  yet  to  be 
attained;  errors  of  interpretation  and  conception  have 
yet  to  be  corrected,  and  largely,  no  doubt,  by  means  of 
hostile  criticism  ;  the  misconceptions  of  selfishness  or 
passion  have  to  be  removed ;  incapacities  of  defective 
moral  attainment  have  to  be  remedied. 

In  both  the  individual  and  the  community  there  is  a 
continual  advance  from  the  lower  to  the  higher,  an 
improvement  in  morality,  an  attainment  in  holiness,  a 
growth  in  grace,  which  is  one  of  the  fundamental 
principles  of  the  Christian  Hfe.  The  moral  ideal  of  the 
patriarchs  was  far  below  that  of  David,  that  of  David 
was  far  below  that  of  the  apostle  Paul.  The  religious 
standard  of  the  mediaeval  centuries  was  far  below  that  of 
the  Reformation,  and  that  of  the  Reformation  far  below 
that  of  our  own  day.  Hence  it  follows  that  the  only  fair 
estimate  of  practical  Christian  morality  is  to  test  it  by 
the  conceptions  of  the  day. 

The  same  principle  must  be  applied  to  the  Bible. 
The  biblical  history  of  religious  men  is  often  indeed 
recklessly  adduced  as  the  biblical  standard  of  moral 
goodness ;  and  the  wise,  practical  dealings  of  God  with 
imperfect  men,  or  His  acceptance  of  their  conduct,  as 
the  Divine  ideal  of  what  human  goodness  should  be. 
But  clearly  the  moral  ideal  of  the  Bible  is  not  to  be  found 
in  its  historical  records  as  such,  but  only  in  its  didactic 
principles  and  precepts.  Our  contention  is,  not  that  in 
the  character  or  the  words  of  Abraham,  or  David,  or 
John,  we  get  the  Divine  ideal  of  goodness,  but  that  in 
the  divinely  affirmed  principles  and  teaching  of  the  Bible 
we  have  the  ground  and  standard  of  the  loftiest  morality 
ever    propounded  to    men  ; — a   morality   that,  if  fully 


28o     The  Moral  Teaching  of  the  New  Testament. 

realized,  would  elevate  human  nature  to  its  utmost  con- 
ceivable perfectibility. 

The  God  of  the  Bible,  in  the  ethical  conception  ot 
His  character,  and  of  His  historical  relations  to  men,  not 
only  surpasses  all  other  theological  conceptions,  but,  in  its 
absolute  perfection,  is  unspeakably  glorious;  it  satisfies 
not  only  our  moral  sentiment,  but  our  moral  imagination 
— we  can  conceive  nothing  higher.  The  God  of  the 
Bible  is  not  a  pagan  Fate,  an  Olympian  Zeus,  an  arbitrary 
or  lustful  tyrant,  a  philosophic  necessity,  a  physical  law  ; 
He  is  a  pitying,  loving,  yearning  Father,  with  whose 
helping  tenderness  the  most  miserable  and  sinful  are 
placed  in  the  closest  relations. 

The  ethical  conception  of  holiness  presented  in  the 
Bible  has  its  root  in  the  recognition  of  absolute  human 
freedom  and  responsibility ;  its  essence,  in  the  perfect 
purity  of  the  inner  heart ;  its  practical  possibility  in  the 
redemptive  work  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  in  the  regenerating 
influences  of  God's  Holy  Spirit ;  and  its  consummation  in 
the  absolute  hoHness  and  benevolence  which  are  idealised 
in  the  character  of  Christ,  and  in  the  moral  perfection  of 
God.  The  supreme  ethical  precepts  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment are,  "  Let  the  mind  be  in  you  which  also  was  in 
Christ  Jesus;"  "Be  ye  therefore  perfect,  as  your  Father 
who  is  in  heaven  is  perfect."  Whatever  Christian  men 
may  actually  realise^  this  is  the  recognised  standard  by 
which  they  measure  themselves,  the  avowed  ideal  after 
which  they  strive. 

5.  It  has  been  urged,  in  disparagement  of  Christianity, 
that  the  great  ethical  principles  upon  which  it  insists,  and 
which  are  embodied  in  the  teaching  of  Christ,  are  not  its 
creation,  but  are  derived  from  Jewish  rabbis  or  pagan 
philosophers.      Considerable  interest  was  caused  some 


The  Moral  Teaching  of  the  New  Testament.     281 

four  or  five  years  ago  by  the  appearance  of  a  remarkable 
article  on  the  Talmud,  which  cited  from  it  a  series  of 
maxims  which  had  generally  been  supposed  to  be  peculiar 
to  the  New  Testament.  The  excitement  might  have  been 
less,  had  it  been  remembered  that  the  compilation  of 
the  lalmud,  by  Jehudah  Hanassi,  dates  from  the  year 
219  after  Christ. 

But  we  are  not  careful  to  reply  to  such  objections. 
Christianity  does  not  profess  to  propound  new  principles 
of  morals ;  no  stronger  condemnation  of  it  can  be 
imagined.  Principles  of  morals  are  immutable;  they 
have  their  reason  in  the  nature  of  things,  in  the  eternal 
distinction  between  right  and  wrong,  of  which  we  can 
give  no  other  account  than  that  it  is. 

Isolated  principles  and  maxims,  moreover,  are  no  more 
a  moral  system  than  separate  bricks  are  a  house,  or 
separate  columns  a  cathedral.  The  claim  of  Christi- 
anity is,  that  it  is  the  supreme  expression  of  moral  senti- 
ment, the  flower  and  fruit  of  the  world's  purest  feeling ; 
it  lifts  moral  principles  to  a  degree  of  spiritual  signi- 
ficance, elevation,  and  sympathy  never  before  associated 
with  them  ;  it  combines  the  manifold  moral  sentiments  of 
human  life  into  a  system  of  moral  obligation,  the  purity, 
symmetr)^,  beauty,  and  penetrating  thoroughness  of  which 
are  without  parallel  in  the  history  of  human  speculation, 
and  touches  it  with  a  peculiar  emotion  which  makes  it  a 
religion,  the  dynamic  force  of  which  is  incalculable  and 
all-pervading.  Further,  it  is  the  claim  of  Christianity  to 
have  propounded  a  morality  that  is  as  universal  as  it  is 
supreme.  It  is  a  fitting  and  adequate  moral  law  for  the 
life  of  humanity  under  all  its  manifold  conditions  and 
degrees  of  development,  so  marvellously  generalized,  that 
no    local   peculiarities    disqualify    it ;    so   marvellously 


282     The  Moral  Teaching  of  the  New  Testament. 

adjusted,  that,  while  it  transcends  the  highest  degree  of 
moral  attainment,  it  is  perfectly  adapted  to  the  lowest — 
none  can  escape  its  requirements,  or  evade  the  appli- 
cation of  its  principles ;  and  so  marvellously  cogent,  that 
every  mind  and  heart  must  either  submit  to  it,  or 
strenuously  resist  it.  Like  great  laws  of  nature,  the 
moral  code  of  Christianity  is  perfectly  applicable, 
wherever  men  are  found. 

6.  Another  distinctive  element  of  Christian  morality 
is  the  personal  relations  in  which  it  is  rooted.  It 
eminently  fulfils  Mr.  Matthew  Arnold's  requirement,  and 
creates  an  enthusiasm  for  righteousness;  and  it  alone, 
among  the  moral  systems  of  the  world,  does  this. 
Morality  cannot  be  practically  realized  through  the  mere 
sense  of  right  and  wrong.  The  attainment  of  virtue  is 
possible  only  through  the  earnestness  that  strong  emotion 
generates  ;  and  the  problem  of  all  moral  systems  is  how 
to  generate  it.  It  does  not  suffice  for  the  generating  of 
this  emotion  that  virtue  tends  to  happiness.  This  Mr. 
Arnold  imagines  to  have  been  the  inspiration  of  the 
passionate  religious  affection  of  the  old  Hebrews. 

But  all  human  experience  testifies  that  the  mere 
calculation  of  happiness  does  not  make  a  man  virtuous. 
"  Honesty  is  the  best  policy."  Yes,  but  we  instinctively 
feel  that  it  is  not  a  very  elevated  honesty  that  is  pro- 
duced by  mere  policy.  "  Goodness  commands  respect." 
Yes,  but  we  all  concur  in  designating  a  man  a  Pharisee, 
a  Pecksniff,  who  is  good  in  order  to  be  respected. 
Nobler  natures  will  rather  recoil  from  such  motives,  and 
hate  themselves  for  the  meanness  of  entertaining  them. 
It  needs  a  deeper,  more  potent  influence  than  that  of 
mere  selfish  calculation,  to  make  men  love  virtue  with  a 
passion  that  is  a  worship.     It  needs  reverence,  gratitude. 


The  Moral  Teaching  of  the  New  Testament.     283 

enthusiasm.  We  cannot  feel  reverence  for  an  abstract 
principle — gratitude  for  an  unrecognising  law — enthusiasm 
for  a  calculated  policy.  When,  in  the  history  of  human 
enthusiasm,  of  religion,  of  patriotism,  of  moral  movements, 
such  as  the  abolition  of  slavery,  has  it  been  generated 
thus?  Whatever  ought  to  be  theoretically,  practically 
all  the  noble  enthusiasms  of  history,  which  have  swept 
away  wrongs,  and  achieved  great  reformations,  have  been 
inspired  by  personal  elements. 

That  in  Christianity  which  applies  to  virtue  the  touch 
of  emotion,  and  elevates  it  to  a  religion,  is  its  peculiar 
conception  of  our  relations  to  the  personal  God  as  our 
tender  Father,  and  to  the  Incarnate  Christ  as  our  self- 
sacrificing  Redeemer. 

Suppose  the  basis  of  moral  obligation  to  be  merely 
the  instinctive  sentiment  of  right, — what  is  to  constrain 
the  affections  and  passions  to  obey  it,  or  to  prevail 
against  the  selfishness  that  urges  us  to  disregard  it? 
Why  should  I  not,  if  I  choose,  obey  the  instinct  of 
selfishness,  as  well  as  the  instinct  of  righteousness? 
The  moral  conscience  may  approve  the  latter,  and  con- 
demn the  former;  and  it  may  be  true  that  the  natural 
fruits  of  righteousness  are  better  and  more  precious  than 
any  possible  fruits  of  selfishness ;  but  suppose  that,  as 
myriads  of  men  do,  I  prefer  to  indulge  the  selfishness, 
and  pay  the  price — the  disapproval  of  conscience  and  the 
disadvantage  of  evil.  What  is  there  to  hinder  such  a 
preference — to  give  a  supreme  sanction  to  the  "  ought "? 
Can  any  system  be  more  palpably  weak  in  motive  than 
utilitarianism  is? 

Or,  suppose  the  external  ethical  obligation  to  be 
a  digest  of  rules,  addressing  themselves  to  the  merely 
moral  instincts — a  codified  system  of  precepts  like  the 


284    The  Moral  Teaching  of  the  New  Testament. 

ten  words  of  Sinai ;  or  even  a  philosophy  of  the  spirit, 
that  is,  of  the  spiritual  and  moral  nature  of  man.  Its 
rules  would  be  merely  the  commands  of  a  supreme 
authority,  the  philosophy  would  be  simply  a  cold  meta- 
physical science  which  only  few  would  apprehend,  and 
which  could  have  no  appeal  to  passion,  or,  at  the  utmost, 
could  appeal  only  to  the  low  passions  of  selfishness. 
The  mere  instinct  of  right,  the  mere  demand  of  autho- 
rity, the  mere  apprehension  of  scientific  truth,  are  utterly 
inadequate  as  motives  to  control  the  practical  lives  of 
men.  Their  impotence  is  attested  by  universal  experi- 
ence. Take  the  conception  of  the  Greek  ^^09 — custom 
— rite — institution — behaviour — character;  or  the  analo- 
gous conception  of  the  Latin  mores,  or  manners.  How 
entirely  external  to  the  living  spirit  they  are,  and  therefore 
how  impotent  as  its  law. 

Take  the  Positivist  conception  of  moral  education, 
which,  according  to  Comte,  is  the  mere  knowledge  of 
facts ; — *' of  causes  of  phenomena,  whether  first  or  final,  we 
know  nothing ; "  according  to  Mr.  Herbert  Spencer,  that 
children  be  made  to  experience  the  true  consequences 
of  their  conduct;  to  Mr.  Mill,  the  inculcation  of  what 
experience  informs  us  "of  direct  power  over  my  voli- 
tions, I  am  conscious  of  none ; ''  to  Mr.  Bain,  a  deliver- 
ance from  "  the  whole  series  of  phrases  connected  with 
the  will,  freedom,  choice,  deliberations,  self-determina- 
tion, power  to  act  if  we  will ; "  as  being  "  contrived  to 
foster  in  us  a  feeling  of  artificial  importance  and  dignity." 
That  is,  you  are  to  educate  a  child  morally  by  telling 
him  that  moral  freedom  is  a  delusion,  and  responsibility 
a  superstition  ;  that  the  highest  good  of  life  is  happiness, 
and  the  supreme  motive  of  conduct  that  which  promotes  it. 

Even  Cicero   felt   that  the  only  possible   ground   of 


The  Moral  Teaching  of  the  New  Testament.  285 

moral  obligation  was  the  recognition  of  a  personal  God  ; 
that  without  a  Divine  Being  there  can  be  neither  laws 
nor  duties. 

"Moral  philosophy  leans  on  the  aid  of  religion  for 
accomplishing  its  mission  of  human  reformation.  It 
piles  up  the  wood  for  the  sacrifice,  and  slays  the  victims, 
and  scatters  the  incense ;  but  it  expects  the  fire  to 
descend  from  heaven,  and  kindle  the  offering  into 
flames.  Its  system  is  perfect  an^^  beautiful,  but  its 
working  cannot  be  ensured."'"^ 

The  power  of  Christian  sanction  and  constraint  is 
unique.  Christianity  makes  every  moral  obligation  a 
personal  feeling.  It  is  not  a  righteous  law  that  I  have 
to  keep — it  is  a  personal  and  loving  Father  whom  I 
have  to  please.  It  is  not  a  mere  observance  of  a 
Christian  code  which  will  make  me  happy,  to  which  I 
am  urged — it  is  the  crucifixion  of  the  evil  within  me, 
which  rendered  it  necessary  that  the  self-sacrificing 
Redeemer  should  be  crucified  for  me.  I  am  urged  by 
simple  gratitude  to  crucify  the  lusts  which  crucified  Him. 
Because  in  unspeakable  love  He  died  for  my  sin, 
through  His  cross  "the  world  is  crucified  unto  me,  and  I 
unto  the  world." 

No  matter,  so  far  as  the  present  argument  is  concerned, 
whether  this  conception  historically  and  morally  is  true 
or  false.  It  is  Christianity,  and  Christian  men  believe 
it.  The  Christian  writings  are  full  of  its  urgency  as  the 
supreme  motive  for  a  holy  life,  and  Christian  men  admit 
their  constraint,  and  practically  submit  their  actions  and 
their  affections  to  it.  It  is  impossible  to  exaggerate  the 
moral  power  of  this  personal  element  in  Christianity,  and 
we  cannot  exaggerate  this  emphasis.  All  its  ideas  have 
*  Hampden's  "  Moral  Philosophy,"  Lect.  iii.,  p.  lOO. 


286     The  Moral  TeacJimg  of  the  New  Testament. 

their  origin,  all  its  affections  their  object,  all  its  activities 
their  law,  in  our  personal  relation  to  Christ  as  the  Incar- 
nate Son  of  God,  and  our  Redeemer  from  sin.  Christian 
dogma  is  "truth  in  Jesus,"  Christian  discipleship  is 
"  learning  Christ,"  Christian  virtue  is  "  putting  on  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ."  The  Christian  life  is  "being 
quickened  with  Him."  We  pursue  our  Christian  path 
"walking  in  His  steps;"  we  run  our  Christian  race,  "looking 
to  Jesus  ; "  we  endure  our  trials,  "  considering  Him."  So 
far  did  the  early  Christians  carry  this  personal  reference, 
that  the  apostle  Paul  speaks  of  his  proper  individual  life 
as  lost  in  that  of  Christ :  "  Christ  who  is  our  life;"  "  I  knew 
a  man  in  Christ ;"  "  that  I  may  be  found  in  Christ ; "  "I 
live,  yet  not  I,  but  Christ  liveth  in  me." 

The  influence  of  all  this  upon  our  emotions,  our  enthu- 
siasm, is  incalculable  ;  the  world  has  known  no  "  tendency 
to  righteousness  "  that  can  be  compared  with  it.  It  is 
not  a  mere  teacher  who  comes  to  me  with  a  moral 
message,  it  is  the  Divine  Son  of  God  who  comes  to  me 
with  a  moral  salvation,  to  deliver  me  from  the  moral 
power  of  evil  by  His  death  on  the  cross  as  an 
atonement  for  my  sin.  And  by  this  He  appeals  to  our 
grateful  aflection  and  obedience.  "  How  shall  we  that  are 
dead  to  sin  live  any  longer  therein  ?" 

Imagine  that  Christian  morality  were  merely  a  written 
code,  presented  to  us  in  a  book.  Its  power  of  appeal 
would  be  nothing  compared  to  that  of  its  embodiment  in 
Jesus  Christ.  It  is  not  merely  that  Christian  doctrine  is 
more  truthful,  that  its  morality  is  more  puje,  than  those  of 
other  systems ;  it  is  that  these  are  embodied  in  a  personal 
life.  It  is  not  that  Christianity  brings  more  light;  the  mov- 
ing power  of  the  world  is  heat,  not  light.  It  is  because 
the  religion  of  Christ  supplies  the  greatest  heat,  that  its 


The  Moral  Teaching  of  the  New  Testamejit.     287 

dynamic  power  is  the  greatest  that  men  know.  Instead 
of  a  creed  to  be  subscribed,  or  a  code  to  be  obeyed,  we 
have  a  personal  life  to  love  and  to  imitate ;  and  this 
makes  Christian  motive  so  cogent,  Christian  obedience 
so  holy.  Christian  worship  so  loving.  Had  Christ  been 
a  mere  lawgiver,  like  Moses,  His  teaching  could  not  so 
have  constrained  us.  Moses  was  not  an  embodiment  of 
the  law  that  he  gave,  Moses  did  not  lay  down  his  life  to 
redeem  us  from  sin.  The  distinctive  power  of  Chistianity 
is  the  power  of  Christ's  person.  He  stands  before  His 
maxims ;  we  love  Him  first,  then  listen  to  His  teaching. 
He  is  the  personal  centre  around  whom  our  affections 
gather,  our  life  revolves.  All  our  religious  thought  and  obe- 
dience and  love  enshrine  themselves  in  Him.  His  peer- 
less perfection  is  ever  before  us — individual,  vivid,  divine, 
all  that  we  can  reverence  in  Deity,  all  that  we  can  love 
in  humanity — a  presence  that  we  cannot  banish,  a  power 
that  we  cannot  resist,  a  beautiful  incarnation  of  purity 
and  love  that  we  can  neither  gainsay  nor  corrupt.  The 
most  perfect  moral  system  can  excite  no  enthusiasm 
compared  with  such  a  life.  "What  the  law  could  not 
do,  in  that  it  was  weak  through  the  flesh,  God  sending 
His  own  Son  in  the  likeness  of  sinful  flesh  condemned  sin 
in  the  flesh."  To  learn  virtue  we  go  not  to  a  book  of 
dogmas,  but  to  the  life  of  a  man  ;  it  is  a  discipleship  of 
personal  imitation ;  we  are  thrown  upon  a  living  human 
heart ;  we  learn  duty  from  His  obedience,  love  from  His 
tenderness ;  "  we  learn  Christ,"  His  fidelity  to  principle, 
His  fearlessness  in  duty.  His  self  sacrifice  in  helping ;  we 
clasp  His  hand,  we  walk  by  His  side,  we  witness  His  Hfe, 
the  beautiful  and  perfect  exemplification  in  Him  of  all 
human  virtues  and  graces,  the  moral  possibilities  of  a 
sanctified  manhood. 


288     The  Moral  Teaching  of  the  New  Testament. 

In  our  conception  of  it,  His  life  has  a  purity  and  a 
pathos,  His  image  a  beauty  and  a  power,  that  rebuke  sin 
wherever  we  see  it,  and  kindle  enthusiasm  and  desire 
whenever  we  remember  it.  And  when  we  do  sin,  it  is 
our  first  and  bitterest  penitence  that  we  have  sinned 
against  His  holy  love. 

In  our  practical  struggle  with  evil,  the  New  Testament 
image  of  the  man  Jesus  Christ  is  unspeakably  precious 
to  us.  We  attain  familiarity  with  the  holiest  conception 
of  character  that  the  world  has  known  ;  we  come  to  feel 
as  if  we  had  lived  with  Him  as  a  friend,  and  com- 
muned with  Him  as  a  brother;  we  carry  His  image 
in  our  heart,  we  think  His  thoughts,  we  imbibe  His 
spirit;  we  find  Him  everywhere  present  with  us,  the 
model  and  inspiration  of  our  life — perfect  law  in  a  per- 
fect example.  We  learn  from  the  study  of  the  personal 
Christ  more  than  from  all  other  studies  beside  :  we  are 
constrained  by  His  unspeakable  love  to  an  enthusiasm  of 
grateful  adoration  that  nothing  else  can  kindle.  Mere 
law  could  give  us  only  maxims,  the  personal  Christ  gives 
as  an  example,  and  love  to  Him  gives,  as  love  always 
does,  divinations.  It  is  a  combination  of  holy  law  and 
worshipping  love  that  is  unique. 

This,  then,  is  the  moral  supremacy  that  we  claim  for 
Christianity,  that  it  is  not  only  ethically  superior  to  all 
other  moral  systems,  but  that  its  personal  relationships 
with  Christ  give  it  a  dynamic  power  of  which  other 
systems  know  nothing. 

This  might  be  abundantly  justified  by  an  appeal  to 
history  and  to  experience.  Other  systems  have  failed 
as  signally  as  Christianity  has  succeeded.  Where  can 
successful  moral  effort  on  any  large  scale  be  adduced 
apart   from  the   gospel  of  Jesus  Christ  ?     What   pagan 


The  Moral  Teaching  of  the  New  Testament,     289 

philosophy  ever  renewed  a  nation?  Wha  uttilitarian 
moraUty  ever  sanctified  a  community  ?  What  positivist 
mission  is  effecting  moral  reformations  among  heathen 
peoples,  or  the  ignorant  and  criminal  classes  of  our  own 
cities  ?  Where  in  the  world's  experience  has  atheism  or 
infidelity  ever  been  a  moral  and  beneficent  power? 
Which  of  the  great  moral  ameliorations  of  social  life  can 
it  claim  ?  Did  it  reform  prisons,  or  abolish  slavery,  or 
make  oppressive  laws  humane  ?  Does  it  build  hospitals, 
or  teach  ragged  schools,  or  visit  dying  men  ?  It  has  no 
inspiration  that  prompts  it  to  do  such  things ;  it  has  no 
gospel  that  could  give  it  success,  were  it  to  attempt  them. 
True  to  its  instincts,  it  evades  the  obligation  by  denying 
the  misery,  by  disallowing  moral  distinctions  or  responsi- 
bility; and  it  consummates  its  benevolence  by  preaching 
the  gospel  of  suicide  to  the  hopelessly  wretched.  It 
lacks  the  power  which  touches  the  heart  of  virtue,  and 
arrays  on  its  behalf  the  enthusiasm  of  the  soul.  It  leaves 
the  world  to  the  barren  coldness  of  passionless  under- 
standing and  the  stern  judgments  of  the  conscience. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  gospel  of  the  Incarnate  Christ 
takes  its  place,  not  among  the  barren  speculations  of  a 
mere  theosophy,  but  among  the  powers  of  the  world's 
moral  life,  the  most  practical,  the  most  potent  moral 
force  that  has  ever  inspired  men.  It  has  subdued  the 
most  savage  moral  natures,  and  overpowered  the  fiercest 
evil  passions ;  made  the  lawless  obedient,  the  dishonest 
upright,  the  drunkard  sober,  the  unchaste  pure,  the  fiend  a 
saint.  Our  churches  are  full  of  such  instances ;  there  is 
scarcely  a  minister  who  could  not  adduce  numbers  of  such, 
as  the  direct  results  of  his  religious  teaching,  his  preach- 
ing of  Christ.  Evangelising  and  benelovent  agencies  for 
helping  and  blessing  men  in  every  conceivable  way,  at 

19 


290     The  Moral  TeacJiing  of  the  New  Testament. 

home  and  abroad,  religiously  and  socially,  are  devised 
and  carried  out  at  a  great  cost  of  money  and  of  life ;  the 
more  distant,  savage,  and  degraded,  the  stronger  the 
claim.  Robert  Moffat  and  Bishop  Mackenzie  consecrate 
genius  and  learning  that  might  have  adorned  any 
country  to  the  savages  of  central  Africa.  Mrs.  Fry  con- 
secrates her  noble  womanhood  to  prison  visiting, 
Florence  Nightingale  to  hospital  nursing.  There  is  no 
form  of  ministry  to  human  misery  and  sin,  however  self- 
sacrificing,  that  Christian  men  and  women  are  not  in- 
genious in  devising,  eager  in  undertaking,  unwearied  in 
prosecuting.  We  can  more  than  justify  all  that  we  have 
said  about  Christian  morality  by  its  realized  achieve- 
ments ;  first,  by  its  noble  inspirations  of  philanthropy  in 
its  disciples,  and  next  by  its  almost  miraculous  moral 
transformations  in  those  to  whom  they  minister.  Like 
their  Master,  His  disciples  "  go  about  doing  good." 

For  the  first  time  in  the  world's  history  Christianity  has 
solved  the  great  problem  how  virtue  may  become  the 
object  of  passion  ;  how  it  may  excite  the  enthusiasm  of 
the  heart,  as  well  as  the  approbation  of  the  conscience. 
Its  secret  is  the  personal  Christ,  and  the  love  that  He 
inspires.  Christ  has  won  for  Himself,  in  the  hearts  of 
men,  a  religious  reverence  and  a  fervent  devotedness  to 
which  there  is  no  parallel.  Nothing  among  men  is  so 
sacred  as  the  name  of  Christ,  no  reverence  so  great  as 
that  which  hallows  it,  no  rapture  so  great  as  the  love 
which  gathers  round  it,  no  blasphemy  so  great  as  that 
which  profanes  it.  Myriads  of  the  noblest  minds  and 
hearts  of  men  do  Him  homage.  They  who  scoff  are,  in 
both  number  and  intellectual  greatness,  insignificant  in 
comparison  with  those  who  believe.  It  is  a  name  as 
potent  in  the  secret  soul  as  in  the  open  life,  in  the  closet 


The  Moral  Teaching  of  the  New  Testament,     291 

as  in  the  street.  The  devoutest  invoke  it  when  they 
offer  their  worship,  the  holiest  adore  it  when  they  pour 
forth  their  love.  "  It  is  a  name  that  is  above  every 
name." 

II.  For  an  examination  of  the  moral  character  and 
influence  of  separate  elements  of  the  Christian  system, 
such  as  I  contemplated  at  the  outset,  there  is  scarcely  any 
necessity.  Principles  stand  in  the  stead  of  instances ; 
and  general  characteristics,  such  as  have  been  specified, 
may  well  dispense  with  detailed  particulars.  From  the 
indubitable  moral  aspect  and  influence  of  the  whole  we 
may  fairly  infer  the  character  of  its  parts.  "  By  their 
fruits  ye  shall  know  them."  Conscience,  the  moral  affec- 
tions, experience,  history,  all  attest  the  transcendent 
moral  excellence  of  the  Christian  system.  Two  or  three 
indications  must  suffice — 

I.  We  affirm  the  moral  excellence,  both  in  principle 
and  influence,  of  distinctive  Christian  dogmas. 

Christian  dogmata  have  too  often  been  exalted  to  abso- 
lute supremacy  in  the  Christian  system.  Right  notions, 
which  relatively  and  practically  are  only  ministers  to  right 
life,  have  been  regarded  as  of  independent  sufficiency  and 
supremacy.  It  has  been  deemed  more  important  to  sub- 
scribe a  true  creed,  than  to  live  a  holy  life.  More  and 
fiercer  conflicts  have  been  waged  about  creeds  than, 
about  practical  holiness.  If  we  may  judge  from  our 
Lord's  attitude  and  words,  the  reverse  would  be  nearer  the 
truth.  A.  man's  notions  are  surely  of  less  importance  than 
his  moral  and  religious  character.  A  right  heart  and  a 
noble  life  are  surely  the  supreme  end  of  religion. 

But  while  admitting  this,  it  is  surely  a  blind  and  suici- 
dal petulancy  to  disparage  and  denounce  dogma  alto- 
gether, and  to  correct  the  perversion  by  denying  the  use. 


292     The  Moral  Teachmg  of  the  New  Testament 

Dogma  is  the  affirmation  of  the  reality  of  things,  and  no 
system  can  be  satis'factory  or  permanent  that  has  not  an 
intelHgent  and  a  true  scientific  basis.  Even  for  its  own 
sake  truth  is  an  intellectual  necessity  for  us ;  and  it  would 
be  an  anomaly  indeed  if,  while  in  every  other  science 
true  dogma  is  passionately  sought,  it  should  be  deemed 
unimportant  in  theology. 

Dogma,  again,  is  the  parent  of  feeling  and  conduct ; 
dogma  is  right  knowing,  morality  is  right  willing.  We 
cannot  will  rightly  if  we  do  not  know  rightly.  Our  notions 
nurture  our  purposes  and  affections,  and  determine  our 
actions.  The  moral  instincts  and  sympathies  of  a  man 
may  keep  him  right  religiously,  in  spite  of  wrong  theolo- 
gical notions,  but  it  is  surely  a  perilous  position  for  the 
conscience  and  the  life,  when  neither  is  sustained,  when 
both  perhaps  are  contradicted,  by  the  intellectual  appre- 
hensions. 

Both  as  a  true  conception  of  the  highest  things,  and  as 
a  ministry  to  the  moral  life,  therefore,  dogma  is  of  momen- 
tous importance;  so  that  if  it  could  be  shown  that 
Christian  dogmas  were  imcompatible  with  the  highest 
moral  truth,  it  would  be  a  fatal  invalidation  of  Chris- 
tianity itself. 

(i.)  The  Christian  dogma  of  the  Incarnation  does  not 
directly  involve  moral  principles,  or  directly  affect  moral 
conduct.  Its  chief  aspects  are  metaphysical  and  benevo- 
lent ;  and  it  affects  moral  conduct  only  through  the  great 
stimulus  supplied  to  weak  and  desponding  men,  by  the 
helping  grace  of  a  "  strong  Son  of  God." 

(2.)  The  moral  elevation  and  influence  of  the  doctrine 
of  Christ's  human  sinlessness  is  self-evident.     But, 

(3.)  The  dogma  of  sacrificial  atonement  touches  very 
vital  moral  principles,  and  exerts  a  most  potent  moral 


The  Moi^al  Teaching  of  the  New  Testament,     293 

influence.  I  assume  the  teaching  of  the  New  Testament 
to  be  that  the  sufferings  of  Christ  were  not  merely  sub- 
missive and  holy — the  sufferings  of  a  faithful  servant  and 
martyr  of  God  in  a  world  that  was  evil — but  that  they 
were  vicarious  and  piacular,  a  substitutionary  atonement 
for  human  sin,  and  this  in  virtue  of  His  incarnate 
character,  and  as  the  provision  of  God's  infinite  love. 

We  vindicate  the  inherent  and  relative  morality  of  this 
conception  on  grounds  such  as  these,  {a.)  The  very 
idea  of  such  an  atonement  has  its  root  in  an  intense 
realization  of  righteousness  :  lax  moral  feeling  could  not 
generate  it.  (6.)  The  representation  is  of  perfect  volun- 
tariness on  the  part  of  the  substitute,  and  of  concurrent 
pity  and  love  in  Him  who  gave  and  Him  who  was  given, 
(r.)  There  is  in  it  no  violation  of  the  righteousness  of 
law,  inasmuch  as  it  is  appointed  and  accepted  by  the  law- 
giver. {^.)  If  it  be  unjust,  per  se,  that  the  perfectly  holy 
Christ  should  die  for  the  guilty  as  an  expiatory  sacrifice, 
it  is,  in  principle,  equally  unjust  that  He  should  suffer  in 
the  slightest  degree  as  an  example,  (e.)  The  avowed 
moral  end  of  substitution  is  not  to  appease  personal 
feeling  in  God,  but  to  vindicate  righteousness  in  the 
inviolable  maintenance  of  law.  Christ  obeys  the  law 
perfectly  to  vindicate  its  reasonableness,  and  then 
bears  its  penalty  to  vindicate  its  inviolableness  ;  not  in- 
deed the  penalty  which  its  transgressors  would  have  borne, 
which  in  the  nature  of  things  is  impossible,  but  a  penalty 
which,  borne  by  the  holy  Son  of  God,  was  adequate  for 
the  vindication  and  the  impression  necessary.  Now 
whether  this  conception  of  Christ's  atonement  be  the  true 
one  or  not,  it  is  clearly  based  upon  the  very  highest  moral 
conception  of  righteousness — a  much  higher  conception 
than  that  of  the  mere  exercise  of  a  pitiful  feeling ;  to  me 


294     The  Moral  Teaching  of  the  New  Testament. 

it  is  the  only  conception  of  the  forgiveness  of  sins  that  is 
in  all  its  aspects  and  principles  moral — the  only  con- 
ception that  perfectly  satisfies  my  conscience.  That  its 
practical  influence  should  be  to  deepen  our  sense  of  the 
evil  of  sin,  and  to  fill  us  with  grateful  and  adoring  love  to 
Him,  who  at  such  a  personal  cost  has  redeemed  us  from 
it,  is  inevitable.  "We  look  upon  Him  whom  we  have 
pierced,  and  mourn."  "The  love  of  Christ  constrainethus." 
"The  blood  of  Jesus  Christ  cleanseth  us  from  all  sin." 
And  the  experience  of  all  who  receive  this  construction 
of  Christ's  death  is,  that  its  constraining  moral  influence, 
arising  from  its  combination  of  peculiar  elements,  is 
greater  than  that  of  all  other  Christian  ideas  combined. 
In  the  consciousness  of  Christian  men  there  is  no  con- 
straint to  daily  watchful  inward  purity  so  potent  as  the 
death  of  Christ  for  sin.  It  would  be  difficult  even  to 
imagine  an  influence  of  it  inimical  to  holiness.  He  who 
can  deduce  from  it  the  slightest  encouragement  to  sin, 
not  only  belies  the  testimony  of  a,ll  its  disciples,  but 
proves  himself  the  most  superficial  of  all  theorists,  not 
only  destitute  of  its  personal  experience,  but  incapable  of 
apprehending  either  its  true  philosophy  or  the  most 
potent  motives  of  man's  moral  nature. 

4.  The  dogma  of  spiritual  regeneration,  viz.,  that  in  our 
moral  helplessness,  our  practical  inability  to  attain  to  the 
perfect  holiness  to  which  we  are  summoned,  we  are 
helped  by  the  gracious  Spirit  of  God — helped  by  a  divine 
co-operative  energy,  whereby  our  holy  aff"ections  are 
quickened  and  strengthened — is  essentially  moral  in  both 
its  principles  and  influences.  It  would,  I  think,  be  con- 
trary to  moral  principles,  and  destructive  of  holy  in- 
fluences, if  in  His  divine  helping  God  were  represented  as 
superseding  personal  moral  responsibility,  or  as  producing 


The  Moral  Teaching  of  the  New  Testament.     295 

upon  us  an  involuntary  or  a  mechanical  transformation. 
But  this  is  not  the  conception  of  the  New  Testament, 
which  in  manifold  figurative  expression  represents  God 
as  helping  us  in  our  struggle  after  a  better  life.  We  "work 
out  our  own  salvation  with  fear  and  trembling,  because  it 
is  God  who  worketh  in  us."  The  moral  responsibility 
which  would  be  traversed  by  divine  substitution  is  not 
traversed  by  divine  help ;  while  the  fact  that  God  does 
thus  give  grace  as  well  as  injunction,  inspires  the 
strong  encouragement  and  the  strenuous  endeavour 
after  holiness  which  are  most  manifest  in  those  who 
the  most  devoutly  believe  in  the  "  renewal  of  the  Holy 
Ghost." 

5.  It  is  impossible  to  characterise  the  doctrine  of  elec- 
tion, the  metaphysical  conception  of  the  divine  side  of 
salvation,  in  a  sentence.  Few  conceptions  have  been 
represented  in  a  more  unscriptural  and  immoral  way. 
No  teaching  of  the  New  Testament  is  more  explicit  than 
that  of  personal  responsibility,  and  none  is  more  em- 
phatic than  that  of  God's  universal  love.  Complete  and 
congruous  expressions  of  such  metaphysical  conceptions 
probably  surpass  the  capabilities  of  human  thought.  This 
is  exemplified  every  whit  as  much  in  philosophy — where 
the  analogous  question  of  liberty  and  necessity  has  been 
fruitlessly  debated  for  generations,  and  has  led  to  quite 
as  extravagant  theories — as  in  the  theological  doctrines 
of  predestination  and  freewill.  It  is  enough  for  the 
vindication  of  the  New  Testament  morality  that  nothing 
can  be  more  unequivocal  than  its  affirmation  of  man's 
freedom  and  responsibility,  and  of  God's  yearning  and 
universal  love. 

6.  It  is  enough  to  say  here,  concerning  the  New  Tes- 
tament dogma  of  the  final  destiny  of  the  wicked,  that 


296     The  Moral  Teaching  of  the  New  Testafnent. 

whatever  be  the  exact  import  of  its  teaching,  it  certainly 
does  not  err  on  the  side  of  lax  moraUty  ;  while  the 
vindication  of  the  Divine  character  is,  that  its  severest 
expressions  fell  from  the  lips  of  Him  with  whose  infinite 
love  our  poor  compassions  can  bear  no  comparison. 
Whatever  perplexity  our  thought  may  feel  about  the 
possible  meaning  of  New  Testament  threatenings,  we 
may  surely  trust  His  love,  that  it  will  do  nothing  from 
which  our  human  love  would  shrink. 

7.  Need  I  speak  of  the  moral  sentiments  and  precepts 
of  our  Lord's  teaching?  How  profound  the  principles, 
and  how  wise  the  discriminations  of  His  discoursings 
about  life  and  its  uses  ! 

He  denounces  the  strong  tendency  of  men  to  trust  in 
riches,  He  points  out  the  deteriorating  character  of 
such  trust,  but  He  never  disparages  wealth  itself.  He 
denounces  the  over-anxious,  fretful  care  of  struggling 
poverty,  as  a  disabling  weakness,  and  as  an  irreligious 
distrust  of  God's  fatherly  care,  but  He  never  disparages 
patient  industry  or  prudent  foresight. 

In  the  beatitudes  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  He  lays 
down  a  moral  basis  of  life,  so  profoundly  true  and  wise, 
that  all  the  noblest  consciousness  of  men  endorses  it. 
How  searching  and  spiritual,  again.  His  tests  of  pre- 
tended goodness,  of  almsgiving,  fasting,  and  prayer ;  and 
His  tests  of  subtle  sin,  of  murder  in  an  angry  feeling,  of 
adultery  in  a  lustful  look  !  How  elevated  His  doctrine  of 
marriage  !  How  wonderful  His  blending  of  purity  and 
pity  in  His  treatment  of  sin  1  How  perfect  His  theory  of 
human  brotherhood,  and  true  neighbourhness,  and  for- 
giveness, and  unselfishness  !  far  transcending  the  most 
chivalrous  and  sentimental  schemes  of  modern  com- 
munism.   Who   can   doubt   that   if  the   great  teachings 


The  Moral  Teaching  of  the  New  Testament.     297 

of  Christ  were  realized,  social   sin  and   wrong  would 
disappear  ? 

8.  I  cannot  speak  of  the  moral  teaching  of  Paul's 
Epistles,  and  of  their  startling  contrast  to  the  ethics  of 
Gentile  life.  They  develop  into  greater  precision  and 
fulness  the  moral  inculcations  of  Christ,  and  enforce 
them  with  the  great  sanctions  of  His  love  and  death. 
How  they  vindicate  individual  right,  while  they  preserve 
social  order !  How  they  make  every  man  a  law  unto 
himself,  by  insisting  upon  perfect  love  and  purity  of 
heart,  and  by  placing  him  under  law  to  Christ !  Where 
in  the  literature  of  the  world  can  a  more  elevated  and 
yet  simple  directory  of  social  morality  be  found,  than  the 
twelfth  chapter  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  or  the 
fourth,  fifth,  and  sixth  chapters  of  the  Epistle  to  the 
Ephesians  ? 

But  I  must  forbears  it  were  easy  to  develop  each 
separate  point  into  a  treatise. 

It  is  enough  to  say  that,  tested  by  any  other  theory  of 
morals  that  has  been  propounded  to  men,  by  the 
consentaneous  verdicts  which  the  moral  consciousness  of 
men  have  pronounced  upon  it,  by  the  conscious  in- 
fluence of  it  upon  individual  hearts  and  lives,  by  the 
involuntary  testimony  which  is  furnished  by  the  judg- 
ments of  its  adversaries  upon  its  disciples,  and  by  the 
entire  scope  of  its  history  and  results  both  in  com- 
munities and  individual  lives,.  Christianity  not  only 
transcends  all  the  philosophical  and  moral  systems  of  the 
world,  it  so  transcends  them  as  to  be  virtually  unique, 
and  as  to  leave  nothing  for  even  imagination  to  add. 
From  its  ideal  of  life  now,  it  rises  to  the  prophecy  of  its 
own  grand  consummation  hereafter,  when  "the  people 
shall  be  all  righteous,  every  one ; "  and  from  its  perfection 


298     The  Moral  Teaching  of  the  New  Testament. 

on  earth  it  soars  in  its  holy  rapture  to  the  kingdom  of 
God  in  heaven,  into  which  "  there  shall  in  no  wise 
enter  anything  that  defileth,  neither  whatsoever  worketh 
abomination,  or  maketh  a  lie ;  but  they  who  are  written 
in  the  Lamb's  book  of  life." 


THE  GRADUAL  UNFOLDING  OF 
REVELATION. 


REV.   GORDON    CALTHROP,    M.A. 


The  Gradual  Unfolding  of  Revelation. 


ONE  of  the  best  commentaries  on  Holy  Scripture 
that  I  am  acquainted  with,  is  the  daily  newspaper. 
What  the  Bible  tells  me,  I  find  frequently  backed  up,  of 
course  without  deliberate  intention,  by  the  Press.  I 
read  painful  things  in  the  one,  about  the  sinfulness  and 
selfishness  of  the  human  heart  \  but  there  is  a  very  distinct 
echo  of  these  statements  in  the  continuous  record  of 
vice,  and  crime,  and  wrong-doing,  supplied  by  the  other. 
The  Bible,  again,  talks  about  a  judgment  to  come.  Men 
ridicule  the  idea ;  but  when  I  turn  to  my  newspaper,  I 
find  a  curious  kind  of  process  going  on  in  the  world, 
which  seems  to  correspond,  very  closely,  with  the  scrip- 
tural assertion.  Every  now  and  then  a  great  exposure  takes 
place.  Perhaps  it  is  a  bubble-company  that  has  exploded  ; 
perhaps  it  is  a  religious  hypocrite  that  has  been  un- 
masked; perhaps  it  is  some  long-successful  fraud  that 
has  been  brought  to  light  and  punished;  perhaps  it  is 
some  gigantic  system  of  usurpation,  founded  upon  an 
iniquitous  disregard  of  the  rights  and  liberties  of  men, 
and  maintained  by  a  more  iniquitous  appeal  to  their 
passions,  which  has  come  crashing  to  the  ground  in 
masses  of  frightful  ruin.      Whatever  it  is,  it  looks   un-. 


302        The  Gradual  Unfolding  of  Revelation. 

commonly  like  the  interference  of  a  power  that  is  on  the 
side  of  the  right,  and  is  opposed  to  the  wrong  ;  that  will 
allow  what  is  false  and  unreal  to  stand  for  a  time,  but 
only  for  a  time  ;  that  comes  in  at  last  to  make  a  separa- 
tion, and  to  show  up  things  and  men  as  they  really  are. 
I  say,  "  It  looks  like  it."  I  do  not  venture  to  appeal  to 
the  fact,  as  if  it  were  a  proof  of  any  kind,  but  I  claim  that 
thus  much  be  admitted,  that  there  is  something  in  human 
history  which  harmonizes  with,  and  which  points  in  the 
direction  of,  a  great  final  interference  in  the  affairs  of 
men.  The  newspapers  record  a  number  of  little  judgment 
days,  which  are  possibly  anticipations  and  foretastes  of  the 
great  judgment  day,  of  which  we  believe  Scripture  to 
speak. 

Now  may  I  be  permitted  to  say  that  we,  who  are  friends 
and  advocates  of  revealed  religion,  fancy  that  we  have 
an  ally  of  the  most  useful  kind  in  the  correspondence 
which  exists  between  what  we  read  in  the  Bible,  and  what 
we  see  going  on  continually  in  the  world  round  us? 
The  commentary  upon  the  Bible,  which  the  world  at 
large  supplies,  is  to  us  invaluable.  It  throws  light  on 
many  a  dark  passage.  Frequently,  if  it  does  not  solve  a 
problem  for  us,  it  serves  to  reconcile  us  to  the  existence 
of  the  problem  ;  for  we  see  that  it  is  not  created  by 
Scripture,  nor  to  be  found  there  alone ;  but  that  it  is 
part  of  the  conditions  under  which  we  are  actually 
living.  Is  it  hard,  for  instance,  to  understand  what  the 
Bible  tells  us  about  the  Divine  dealings  with  nations? 
Well,  it  is  no  less  hard  to  understand  much  that  we  see 
actually  taking  place,  and  much  that  we  have  heard  of 
as  actually  having  taken  place,  on  the  stage  of  a  national 
history.  Or,  are  there  difficulties  in  the  scriptural  state- 
ments about  the  transmission  of  hereditary  taint ;  about 


The  Gradual  Unfolding  of  Revelation.       303 

the  suffering  of  the  innocent  for  the  guilty  ?  There  are. 
But,  whatever  the  difficulties  may  be,  we  do  not  get  lid 
of  them  when  we  turn  from  the  printed  page  to  the  outer 
world.  They  haunt  us  still,  and  in  the  misery  and  the 
loss  which  a  man  has  power  to  inflict  upon  others, — 
those  others  not  consciously,  or  not  intentionally,  parti- 
cipating in  his  evil, — we  may  find  distinct  corroboration 
of  some  of  those  very  doctrines  of  Scripture  which  are 
represented  as  being  totally  unworthy  of  the  character  of 
God.  I  say  then  that  this  correspondence  between  the 
world  in  the  Book,  and  the  world  outside  the  Book,  is  of 
essential  service  to  us,  when  we  have  a  painful  problem 
to  solve.  We  expect  to  discover  traces  of  the  same 
mind,  and  traces  of  the  same  mode  of  operation,  in  the 
two  things  ;  and  we  do  discover  what  we  look  for,  and 
we  do  not  allow  ourselves  to  be  too  much  disturbed  at 
our  inability  to  solve  a  scriptural  difficulty,  when  we 
detect  precisely  the  same  difficulty  intertwined  and  inter- 
woven with  the  fabric  of  our  ordinary  existence. 

Now  it  has  occurred  to  me.  Gentlemen,  that  the  plan 
of  glancing  from  the  Book  of  God  to  the  Book  of  Nature, 
and  back  from  the  Book  of  Nature  to  the  Book  of  God — 
which  many  of  those  whom  I  represent  here  have  found 
to  bring  much  comfort  and  strength  to  their  own  minds 
— ^may  be  very  serviceable  to  me,  in  my  present  under- 
taking. And  my  object  will  be  to  show,  as  well  as  I  can, 
why,  to  my  mind,  no  real  objection  lies  against  revelation, 
on  the  ground  that  the  process  by  which  God  has  made 
Himself,  His  person  and  character,  known  to  man,  has 
been  a  slow  one,  requiring  long  ages  to  bring  it  to  a 
satisfactory  and  successful  issue. 

Now,  if  there  be  a  God  and  a  Creator  (as  we  believe), 
two  things  seem  to  follow  from  the  fact :  first,  that  it 


304       The  Gradual  Unfolding  of  Revelation. 

must  be  very  important  for  any  intelligent  and  account- 
able creatures  that  may  be  made,  to  understand  something 
about  this  Divine  Person,  as  much,  at  least,  as  shall 
keep  them  from  coming  into  colHsion  with  Him.  Next, 
that  it  must  be  impossible  for  the  created  being  to 
understand  the  Creator  perfectly,  because  that  which  is 
finite  can  hardly  be  expected  to  comprehend  that  which  is 
infinite.  But,  besides  this,  I  think  we  may  say — on  the 
supposition  still  that  there  is  a  Creator — that,  inasmuch 
as  the  artificer  is  superior  to  his  work  :  the  poet  being 
greater  than  the  poem;  the  painter  being  greater  than  his 
picture ;  the  man,  out  of  whose  fertile  and  inventive 
brain  a  piece  of  mechanism  proceeds,  being  himself 
something  better,  nobler,  higher,  than  his  own  handi- 
work ;  inasmuch  as  this  is  the  case,  it  will  be  more 
elevating  to  the  character  of  the  created  to  contemplate 
the  Being  Who  makes,  than  to  contemplate  the  thing  that 
is  made ;  and  that,  therefore,  an  essential  part  of  the 
educational  process  through  which  a  progressive  race  like 
that  of  man  is  to  be  made  to  pass,  may  be  expected  to 
consist  in  a  communication  to  them,  by  some  means  or 
other,  of  the  knowledge  of  God.  But,  if  this  be  con- 
ceded, it  seems  inevitable  that  the  communication  must 
be  made  in  the  way  of  a  gradual  unfolding.  It  were  no 
proof  of  wisdom  or  of  love  to  pour  in  light  upon  the  eye, 
in  so  full  a  stream  that  the  organ  was  tortured  and 
blasted  by  the  excessive  effulgence.  Such  an  attempt 
would  be  nothing  better  than  a  wanton  exercise  of 
arbitrary  power.  Granted  such  a  Being  as  we  suppose 
God  to  be;  granted  that  He  wishes  to  make  Himself 
known  to  certain  creatures  of  His  hand,  who  are 
fashioned  with  faculties  for  comprehending  and  appre- 
ciating Him — but  those  faculties  of  necessity  inferior  to 


The  Gradual  Unfolding  of  Revelation.       305 

His  own, — it  seems  to  follow,  that  He  will  put  forth  His 
wisdom  in  adapting  the  faculty  to  the  revelation  ;  in 
fitting  the  one  to  the  requirements  of  the  other;  in 
expanding  the  receptive  power  in  proportion  as  He 
increases  the  amount  to  be  received;  in  carefully  pro- 
viding that  no  single  step  be  taken  before  the  strength 
has  been  acquired  for  taking  it,  and  that  no  communica- 
tion be  made  until  there  is  room  and  place  for  its 
entertainment  in  the  capabilities  of  the  mind  that  is  dealt 
with.  Surely  it  is  difficult,  gentlemen,  to  discover  in 
such  a  procedure  as  this  any  inconsistency  with  the  idea 
of  a  creating  God  !  Indeed,  it  would  seem  an  indis- 
pensable part  of  the  relation  between  Creator  and 
created  (supposing  such  a  relation  to  exist),  that  all 
unveihng  of  the  one  to  the  other  must  be  gradual  in  its 
character.  Put  out  of  the  question,  if  you  like,  what  you 
consider  the  fiction  of  the  Fall.  Imagine  the  creature  to 
be  perfect  and  flawless  ;  complete  in  all  its  parts  and 
faculties.  Still,  being  a  creature,  it  must  be  subject  to 
the  condition  of  development,  at  least,  with  respect  to 
knowledge ;  and  it  is  only  step  by  step  that  it  can  climb 
up  to  more  accurate  acquaintance  with  the  illimitable 
Mind,  which  still  rises  and  towers  above  it.  But  this 
argument,  gentlemen,  if  it  be  a  sound  one,  will  be 
enhanced  by  the  supposition  that  there  is  some  difficulty 
in  the  way ;  something  which  renders  the  created  mind 
inaccessible^  to  a  certain  extent,  to  the  knowledge  which 
it  is  so  important  that  it  should  receive.  And  it  will  be 
enhanced  again  by  the  further  supposition  that  the 
Divine  intelligence  is  not  dealing  with  an  individual 
merely,  but  with  men  in  masses,  who  act  and  react  upon 
each  other;  and  that  the  Divine  plans  for  human 
education  embrace  a  long  succession  of  generations  and 

20 


3o6       The  Gradual  Unfolding  of  Revelation, 

ages.  Again,  let  me  say  that  I  am  not  intending  to 
import  into  this  argument  the  question  of  the  Fall.  All 
I  ask  is,  that  you  will  allow  me  to  assume  that,  if  there  be 
a  God,  He  does  not  find  it  altogether  an  easy  task  to  con- 
vince some  of  His  creatures  of  His  own  existence;  and  that 
even,  where  His  existence  is  admitted,  He  does  not  find 
it  an  altogether  easy  task  to  convey  to  His  creatures 
a  correct  and  distinct  and  accurate  acquaintance  with 
Himself.  The  very  room  in  which  we  are  now  met 
justifies  the  assumption.  And  if  so,  if  there  be  special 
difticulties,  from  whatever  cause  arising,  in  the  way 
of  communicating  to  the  human  race  the  knowledge 
of  God,  we  may  reasonably  expect  that  the  communica- 
tion should  be  a  work  of  time;  that  there  should  be 
something  of  the  character  of  a  deliberate  march  about  it; 
that  it  should  be,  in  fact,  a  gradual  unfolding  to  an 
intellect  and  heart  prepared  to  receive  it. 

And  certainly,  gentlemen,  the  analogy  of  nature  seems 
to  be  in  favour  of  this  view.  The  geologists  tell  us  that 
a  procession  of  mighty  periods  rolled  along,  each  with  its 
own  peculiar  work  to  do,  and  each  contributing  a  fresh 
stage  of  advancement  to  the  total  scheme,  before  the 
globe  on  which  we  live  was  fitted  to  be  the  home  and 
habitation  of  man.  This  task,  we  think,  might  have  been 
accomplished  in  a  moment.  But  it  was  not  accomplished  in 
a  moment.  Nor  was  it  accomplished  in  so  short  a  time  as 
the  ancient  defenders  of  Revelation  seem  to  have  ima- 
gined. It  took  millenniums  to  achieve.  So  the  scientific 
men  tell  us ;  and  to  their  decision  we  bow.  But  when  we 
accept  this  dogma  at  their  hands,  we  think  that  it  does 
at  least  remove  the  charge  of  unreasonableness  and 
absurdity  from  our  belief  in  the  gradual  preparation  of 
the  human  race  for  the  mighty  purposes  of  the  Being  Who 


The  Gradttal  Unfolding  of  Revelation.       307 

created  it.  If  the  one  was  a  work  of  time,  the  other 
may  well  be  a  work  of  time ;  if  the  one  was  a  gradual 
unfolding,  the  other  may  well  be  a  gradual  unfolding. 
And  it  is  not  altogether  inconceivable — on  the  hypothesis, 
of  course,  that  there  is  a  Creator,  and  that  He  had  a 
purpose  in  making  man — that  there  is  some  great  result 
in  the  future,  towards  which  all  that  is  taking  place  now 
in  the  world  of  matter,  and  in  the  world  of  mind,  is 
really  converging;  and  of  which,  the  strife  and  the 
struggle  that  we  see  going  on  around  us,  the  faith  and 
the  doubt,  the  incessant  intellectual  and  spiritual  move- 
ment, the  collisions  of  thought,  the  growth  and  decay 
of  ideas,  the  rise  and  the  fall  of  systems,  are  constituting, 
at  least  in  part,  the  predetermined  and  prearranged 
preparation.  You  say  that  you  do  not  see  it.  Probably 
not.  We  are  not  exactly  in  the  right  position  at  present 
for  seeing  it.  When  an  intricate  and  complicated  scaf- 
folding is  surrounding  an  unfinished  building,  and  the  hod- 
men are  ascending  and  descending  the  ladders,  and  the 
busy  click  of  the  trowel  is  heard  in  every  direction, — that 
is  not  the  best  moment,  is  it,  for  judging  of  the  con- 
ception which  lies  in  the  architect's  mind  ?  If  you  stand 
watching  a  piece  of  tapestry  as  it  issues  forth,  breadth 
after  breadth,  from  the  loom  under  the  cunning  fingers  of 
the  skilful  weaver,  do  you  pass  your  comments  upon  the 
pattern,  then?  do  you  criticise  the  conception,  the 
execution,  the  colouring,  the  shading,  then  ?  or  do  you 
postpone  your  criticism  until  the  whole  work  is  finished, 
and  is  placed  before  you  ?  Or,  again — you  that  understand 
music — will  you  consent  to  form  your  opinion  of  a  noble 
composition  by  going  into  an  orchestra  and  examining 
the  "  scores ''  provided  for  each  individual  instrument  ? 
There  is  the  score  for  the  first  fiddle,  and  the  score  for 


3o8       The  Gradual  Unfolding  of  Revelation. 

the  second  fiddle,  and  the  tinkling  score  for  the  triangle, 
and  the  score  with  the  huge  gaps  in  it  for  the  big-voiced 
drum  ;  there  is  the  score  for  the  trombone,  and  for  the 
hautboy,  and  for  the  ophicleide  and  for  all  the  rest  of 
them :  will  you  dip  into  this  and  that,  and  flutter  about, 
and  take  a  cursory  survey,  and  then  pass  your  judgment, 
and  express  your  opinion  ?  Not  you  !  You  have  too 
much  sense,  and  too  much  of  that  modesty  which  is 
closely  allied  with  sense,  to  do  such  a  thing.  You  just 
wait ;  for  you  know  that  it  is  not  until  each  little  rill  ot 
sound  pours  in  to  swell  the  full  tide  of  harmony,  it  is  not 
until  each  musical  thought  moves  forward  into  its  place 
in  the  grand  array,  and  marches  on,  that  you  can  feel 
yourself  capable  of  grasping  and  appreciating  the  idea 
that  is  hidden  in  the  master's  mind.  In  these  things,  and 
in  such  things  as  these,  we  are  all  of  us  contented  to 
wait.  Ready  enough  to  judge  results,  we  are  slow  about 
criticising  processes.  Why  should  it  not  be  so  when  we 
come  to  the  larger  scale  and  the  grander  platform  of  the 
destinies  of  the  human  race,  and  the  purposes  of  the 
Most  High  ? 

But  now,  gentlemen,  as  I  am  not  arguing  with  you  in 
a  controversial  spirit,  but  speaking — in  a  brotherly  way, 
as  I  hope — about  matters  in  which  we  are  all  interested, 
permit  me  to  tell  you  in  what  way  the  question  of  the 
unfolding  of  revelatwn  presents  itself  to  my  mind,  when 
I  look  into  that  volume  which  we  commonly  call  the 
Bible. 

We  might  expect,  I  think,  before  coming  to  examine 
the  subject,  that  there  would  be  an  analogy,  a  cor- 
respondence more  or  less  close,  between  the  develop- 
ment of  the  human  individual  and  the  development  of 
the  human  race.     Now  we  find  in  childhood  a. sense  of 


The  Gradual  Unfolding  of  Revelation.       309 

right  and  wrong,  but  that  not  very  keen  or  discrimi- 
nating. A  boy,  for  instance,  will  do  deeds  of  cruelty, 
perhaps  with  respect  to  his  companions,  perhaps  with 
respect  to  dumb  animals,  which  would  be  simply 
atrocious  and  unpardonable  in  a  man.  We  do  not,  of 
course,  excuse  the  child.  We  feel  that  his  conduct  is 
guilty,  and  we  punish  him.  And  he  feels,  too,  that  he 
has  done  wrong.  But  after  all,  he  is  not  so  guilty,  his 
conscience  is  not  so  defiled,  his  character  is  not  so  im- 
paired, nor  do  we  think  so  badly  of  him,  as  we  should  it 
he  did  precisely  the  same  thing,  neither  more  nor  less, 
after  arriving  at  the  clearer  understanding  and  fuller 
moral  perceptions  of  manhood.  And  here  it  is,  I  think, 
that  we  may  discover  a  hint  as  to  the  right  way  of 
dealing  with  the  so-called  moral  difficulties  of  the  Old 
Testament.  We  make  the  difficulties  ourselves^  by  im- 
porting into  those  earlier  and  ruder  times  the  pure  and 
noble  and  kindly  feelings  which  we  ourselves  have  been 
educated  up  to  in  the  lapse  of  centuries ;  by  setting  up, 
in  fact,  for  the  childhood  of  the  race,  a  standard  that  is 
applicable  only  to  its  maturity.  Well,  to  put  my  notion 
into  i^^N  words,  (but  those,  words  which  will  seem  to 
you,  I  fear,  to  be  tinged  with  too  distinct  a  theological 
colouring,)  the  child  has  an  idea  of  being  "naughty,"  of 
having  done  wrong,  but  he  has  not  any  deep  sense  of 
sin.  And  I  hold  that  teachers  or  systems  that  endeavour 
to  bring  out  that  sense,  in  anything  like  intensity,  in  a 
child,  are  forcing  on  the  processes  of  nature,  and  doing 
incalculable  mischief  to  a  human  soul.  Afterwards,  as 
time  passes  on,  and  the  mind  expands,  and  the  relations 
of  things  to  each  other  are  more  distinctly  seen,  a 
deeper  and  more  serious  perception  of  the  evil,  and  of 
the  evil  consequences  of  wrong-doing,  takes  possession 


310       The  Gj^adiial  Unfolding  of  Revelation. 

of  us,  and  very  considerably  modifies  our  view  of  the 
world  around  us.  We  come  to  understand  and  to  f  el 
the  nature  of  what  we  call  **  Sin."  Now  I  turn  to  my 
Bible,  and  I  think  I  detect  there  something  corresponding 
to  this  process  in  the  Divine  method  of  dealing  with  man- 
kind. In  Genesis,  in  the  Patriarchal  times — of  which 
Genesis  tells  the  tale — I  find  the  record  of  enough 
sin.  (Yes,  and  I  should  not  believe  in  my  Bible  if  I  did 
not,  any  more  than  I  should  believe  in  a  medical  book 
which  professed  to  give  an  account  of  the  human  body, 
but  omitted  all  mention  of  disease.)  I  find,  I  say,  the 
record  of  enough  sin  :  but  very  seldom,  if  ever,  do  I  find 
the  expression  of  deep  distress  and  self-abasement  on 
account  of  it. 

Adam,  for  instance,  sins  :  but  he  does  not  appear  to 
feel  very  much  sorrow  for  the  offence.  Why  not? 
Because  Adam,  instead  of  being  the  full-orbed  wonder 
that  some  imaginative  people  have  represented  him  to  be, 
was,  morally,  sp'ritually,  and  I  suppose  also  intellectually, 
a  child.  He  had  no  intense  perception  of  the  nature 
of  moral  evil,  and  indeed  I  do  not  think  it  was  to  be  ex- 
pected that  he  should  have. 

But  now,  contrast  Adam's  comparative  indifference — 
his  coolness,  if  I  may  so  call  it — with  the  anguish  ex- 
pressed by  another  man,  a  man  who  has  furnished  more 
occasion  for  objections  to  Scripture  than  almost  all  other 
Scripture  characters  put  together — I  mean  King  David. 
Look  at  some  of  his  Psalms.  They  are  simply  miserable 
in  their  expressions  of  mental  distress,  although  I  grant 
you,  through  all  the  gloom  and  the  misery,  the  Psalmist 
clings  hard  to  his  belief  in  the  mercy  of  the  God  whom 
he  has  so  grievously  offended.  Do  you  remember  what 
Thomas  Carlyle  says  about  David  ?     And  Thomas  Car- 


The  Gradual  Unfolding  of  Revelation.       311 

lyle  is  none  of  your  narrow-minded,  small-brained,  pre- 
judiced religious  bigots.  Permit  me  to  quote  his  words 
to  you  :  "Who  is  called  the  man  after  God's  own  heart? 
David,  the  Hebrew  King,  had  fallen  into  sins  enough  : 
blackest  crimes — there  was  no  want  of  sin.  And  there- 
fore the  unbelievers  sneer,  and  ask,  Is  this  your  man 
according  to  God's  heart  ?  The  sneer,  I  must  say,  seems 
to  me  but  a  shallow  one.  What  are  faults,  what  are  the 
outward  details  of  a  life,  if  the  inner  secret  of  it — the 
remorse,  temptations,  the  often-baffled,  never-ended 
struggle  of  it — be  forgotten  ?  David's  life  and  history, 
as  written  for  us  in  those  Psalms  of  his,  I  consider  to  be 
the  truest  emblem  ever  given  us  of  a  man's  moral  pro- 
gress and  warfare  here  below.  All  earnest  souls  will  ever 
discern  in  it  the  faithful  struggle  of  an  earnest  human 
soul  towards  what  is  good  and  best.  Struggle  often 
baffled,  sore  baffled — driven  as  into  entire  wreck — ^yet  a 
struggle  never  ended  ;  ever  with  tears,  repentance,  true 
unconquerable  purpose,  begun  anew."  This  is  what 
Thomas  Carlyle  says  about  David.  Or  turn  to  the  Apostle 
Paul,  and  remember  what  sorrowful  expressions  that 
sincere  and  true-hearted  man  employs,  when  he  speaks 
of  his  past  life  in  its  unhappy  opposition  to  the  will  and 
the  kingdom  of  God.  What,  then,  is  it  that  makes  the 
difference  between  the  coolness  of  Adam  and  the  deep 
distress  of  David  and  of  Paul  ?  Just  that,  gentlemen, 
which  makes  the  difference  between  the  feeling  of  the 
child  and  the  feeling  of  the  man,  with  respect  to  wrong- 
doing. There  has  been,  in  the  one  case,  what  there  has 
not  been  in  the  other — an  education  and  training  of  that 
part  of  our  being  through  which  we  come  to  the  percep- 
tion of  moral  evil.  The  patriarchal  times,  then,  (as  I 
understand  it,)  were  the  childish,  or  rather  the  childlike, 


312       The  Gradual  Unfolding  of  Revelation. 

times  of  the  human  race.  There  was  no  deep  under- 
standing then  of  the  problems  of  life,  and  no  very 
anxious  enquiry  into  the  relations  existing  between  God 
and  man.  But  this  period  of  simplicity  could  not,  of 
course,  be  expected  to  last  for  ever.  The  mind  of  the 
race  was  advancing.  Men  were  beginning  to  feel  more 
distinctly  the  awfulness  of  being  placed  in  this  myste- 
rious universe,  and  made  part  and  parcel  of  it :  and 
questions  were  rapidly  arising  on  every  side  which  de- 
manded an  answer.  Consequently,  another  stage  in 
human  education  was  called  for  :  and  that  other  stage 
was  entered  upon  when  the  Jewish  nation  was  called  into 
existence. 

Now  this  remarkable  people  was  to  be,  we  think,  the 
central  point  in  the  Divine  dealing  with  mankind.  They 
are  the  teachers  of  the  world,  consciously  or  uncon- 
sciously, in  things  which  concern  religion.  Whether  we 
like  to  acknowledge  it  or  not,  the  Jewish  influence 
radiates  throughout  civilized  humanity.  You  cannot  get 
rid  of  the  Jew,  do  what  you  will.  He  constitutes  the 
most  unmanageable  argument  with  which  doubt  and 
unbelief  have  to  deal.  A  sceptical  prince  (I  believe  it 
was  Frederick  the  Great)  once  asked  his  court  chaplain 
to  give  him  some  clear  evidence  of  the  truth  of  Chris- 
tianity, but  to  do  so  in  very  few  words,  because  a  king 
had  not  much  time  to  spare  for  such  matters.  And  the 
chaplain  replied — "  The  Jews,  your  Majesty."  That 
chaplain  was  a  sensible  man,  and  knew  what  he  was 
about.  Get  rid,  gentlemen,  of  the  Jews,  and  of  that 
strange  Jewish  history,  and  you  may  soon  dispose  of 
other  evidences.  But,  believe  me,  until  you  succeed  in 
clearing  those  troublesome  Jews  out  of  the  way,  you  will 
make  marvellously  little   real  progress   in  the  work   of 


The  Gradual  Unfolding  of  Revelation.       3 1 3 

demolishing  Christianity.  Well,  then,  according  to  our 
view,  God  began  to  teach  these  Jews,  intending,  through 
them,  to  teach  the  whole  world,  deeper  views  of  moral 
evil,  deeper  views  of  man's  position  in  the  universe,  and 
his  personal  relation  to  the  Divine.  And  how  did  God 
do  it?  By  the  instrumentality  of  that  much-derided 
Levitical  system,  with  its  distinction  of  clean  and  unclean 
animals,  of  clean  and  unclean  food ;  with  its  sacrifices 
and  offerings  ;  with  its  multitudinous  laws  about  leprosy, 
and  dress,  and  agriculture,  and  fasts,  and  feasts,  and 
many  other  things ;  with  its  whole  apparatus,  in  fact,  of 
what  may  seem  to  us  to  be  petty  prohibitions  and  insig- 
nificant details.  People  laugh  at  the  Levitical  system. 
But  why  ?  You  go  into  an  infant  school  to  see  the 
skilful  master  teaching  and  training  the  litde  ones.  And 
how  does  he  do  it  ?  By  appeals  to  the  eye,  by  simple 
models,  by  roughly-sketched  diagrams,  by  things  which 
he  sends  round  from  form  to  form  for  the  children  to 
touch  and  handle  for  themselves.  You  don't  laugh  at 
his  symbolism,  gentlemen.  You  don't  ridicule  his 
"  object-lessons."  You  know  that  the  method  which  he 
is  employing  is  the  best  way,  if  indeed  it  is  not  the  only 
way,  n\  which  he  can  communicate  truth  to  the  feeble, 
undeveloped,  inexperienced  minds  of  his  pupils.  And  why, 
I  ask  you,  why  should  men  allow  themselves  to  ridicule 
God,  when  He  condescends,  out  of  the  infinite  tender- 
ness of  His  love,  to  be  the  infant-school  teacher  of  the 
human  race  ?  In  this  school  the  Jews  learnt  the  nature 
of  moral  evil.  They  learnt  to  understand  what  a  con- 
science is,  when  it  has  been  awakened  to  susceptibility, 
and  called  into  vitality  of  action.  They  learnt  the 
meaning  of  that  word  "sin."  And  they  learnt,  too, 
though  indistinctly  at  first,  but   afterwards   with   ever- 


314       The  Gradual  Unfolding  of  Relelation. 

increasing  clearness,  by  what  means  God  proposed  to 
meet  and  counteract  the  widespread  disease  of  human 
nature.  Thus  they  were  prepared  for  that  higher  stage 
of  education  in  which  they  could  realize  the  Father- 
hood of  the  unseen  God.  It  was  only  after  Jesus  Christ 
appeared  that  men  could  intelligently  and  unfalteringly 
speak  of  God  as  their  Father,  "  Our  Father "  is  the 
keynote  of  the  Christian  dispensation,  and  it  could  only 
have  been  struck  after  Christ  came,  and  lived,  and  died. 
To  this  point  of  spiritual  development  it  was,  we  believe, 
the  Divine  intention  to  lead  up  the  human  race.  And  I 
think  you  may  easily  trace  a  gradual  process,  by  which 
the  ideas  of  greatness,  and  power,  and  protection,  and 
self-existence,  and  holiness,  and  justice,  passing  each  in 
well-considered  and  well-ordered  succession  before  the 
mind,  merge  themselves  at  last  in  that  to  which  they  have 
all  been  the  preliminaries,  in  the  gracious  and  loving 
image  of  One  Who  is  a  God  and  Father  in  Jesus  Christ. 
Well,  gentlemen,  you  will  excuse  my  talking  in  this 
way  instead  of  arguing.  And  perhaps  the  simple  lay- 
ing of  my  own  course  of  thought  before  you  may  do 
better  than  argument  At  all  events,  I  trust  I  may  have 
succeeded  so  far  as  to  convince  you  that  it  is  not  alto- 
gether foolish  of  us  to  expect  that  there  would  be  a 
gradual  unfolding  of  the  Divine  -character  and  will  to  our 
race,  when  we  observe  the  gradual  moral  and  spiritual 
development  of  the  individual.  Three  stages  seem  to  be 
indicated  by  the  language  of  Scripture ;  for  one  of  the 
New  Testament  writers  speaks  of  the  child,  the  young 
man,  the  father,  in  reference  to  this  subject  of  spiritual 
unfolding.  "The  child,  the  young  man,  the  father." 
The  period  of  unquestioning  thought,  of  undeveloped  per- 
ceptions.   The  period  of  enquiry  and  confiict.    The  period 


I  The  Gradual  Unfolding  of  Revelation.    '  3*1 5 

of  assured  position,  of  calm,  rest,  of  broadening  know- 
ledge. "  First  the  blade,  then  the  ear,  after  that  the  full 
corn  in  the  ear."  The  third  period  is  that  at  which  we 
are  now  placed.  And  what  more  is  wanted  ?  Only  this, 
that  the  recognition  and  acceptance  of  our  position  should 
become  universal. 

And  suffer  me  to  say,  before  I  bring  my  address  to  a 
close,  that  the  considerations  just  adduced  may  possibly 
serve  to  reconcile  us  to  the  slow  progress  which  Chris- 
tianity, after  all,  has  made  and  is  making  in  the  world. 
Nearly  two  thousand  years  have  passed  away  since  the 
Prophet  of  Galilee,  the  Man  who  "went  about  doing 
good,"  hung,  the  rejected  of  His  people,  upon  the  cross 
of  Calvary.  It  is  true  that  in  that  time  untold  millions, 
seeing  in  Him  something  more  than  human,  have  given 
Him  their  hearts'  best  affections,  have  lived  in  the  faith 
of  His  name,  and  found  their  dying  pillow  smoothed  and- 
softened  by  the  recollection  of  His  love.  True  also  it  is 
that  the  faith  which  this  teacher  inculcated  has  become 
an  undeniable  influence  and  power  in  the  world.  Just 
as  in  cathedrals  the  form  of  the  Cross  may  frequently  be 
detected  in  the  mode  of  their  construction,  so  the  doc- 
trines of  the  Cross  have  somehow  worked  their  way  into 
the  very  fabric  and  texture  of  our  modern  civilization ; 
and  now  the  most  enlightened  and  powerful  nations  of 
the  earth  are  just  those  nations  who  call  themselves 
Christian.  But  it  is  also  true  that  we  seem  very  far  from 
an  universal  acceptance  by  mankind  of  this  religion, 
which  claims  to  be  the  religion  for  every  man.  To  say 
nothing  of  what  is  going  on  at  home,  there  are  vast  popu- 
lations on  our  globe  who  are  almost  as  much  untouched 
by  the  influences  of  Christianity  as  if  Jesus  of  Nazareth 
had  never  existed.     Is  this  slow,  gradual  unfolding  an 

2 


3 1 6       The  Gradual  Uitfoldhig  of  Revelation, 

objection  to  Christianity?  ■  Well,  if  it  is,  it  is  an  objec- 
tion which  lies  against  all  the  other  works  of  God.  If 
you  maintain  that  the  process  of  Christianising  mankind 
should  have  been  a  sudden  one,  an  instantaneous  burst 
of  enlightenment  and  conviction,  sweeping  all  at  once 
irresistibly  before  it,  you  must  maintain  also  that,  in 
this  special  instance,  the  Deity  departed  from  His 
usual  method  of  procedure.  According  to  your  hypo- 
thesis, He  acts  in  matters  of  religion  as  He  acts  in  no 
other  matter.  Now,  is  this  at  all  likely?  I  venture  to 
think  that  it  is  not.  At  all  events,  even  if  it  is  more  in 
accordance  with  your  ideas  of  what  should  be,  that  the 
spread  of  Christianity  should  not  be  a  gradual  work,  you 
cannot  say  that  the  fact  of  its  being  gradual  is  fatal 
to  the  theory  of  its  emanation  from  a  Divine  source.  If 
God  works  by  slowly  evolving  processes  in  one  depart- 
ment of  the  universe,  it  is  certainly  conceivable  that  He 
may  see  fit  to  work  in  the  same  way  in  another.  If  it  be 
true  that  He  occupied  centuries  upon  centuries  in  building 
up  the  fabric  of  the  earth  on  which  we  dwell,  it  is  surely 
not  incredible  that  He  may  take  a  long  time  in  bringing 
about  an  universal  adoption  of  Christianity  by  the  men 
He  has  put  on  that  earth.  The  Most  High  need  not  be 
in  a  hurry.  He  is  not  like  the  creature  of  a  day.  He 
has  plenty  of  time  to  work  in.  And  who  shall  undertake 
to  deny  that  He  is  slowly  preparing  the  intellectual  and 
moral  world  for  the  reception  of  His  Truth  ?  And  who 
shall  undertake  to  affirm  that  in  working  slowly  He  is 
not  working  for  the  best  ?  We  see  but  an  infinitesimal 
portion  of  the  manifold  scheme.  We  stand  in  a  little 
corner  of  the  vast  battle-field.  Is  it  well,  then,  to  come 
to  a  conclusion  upon  such  very  imperfect  and  very  scanty 
data  as  we  have  before  us  ? 


The  Gradual  Unfolding  of  Revelation.       317 

And  yet,  again,  gentlemen,  it  seems  to  me  well  to 
remember  that  the  Creator  does  not  treat  men  as 
machines,  does  not  take  us  by  storm.  He  does  not 
compel  us  to  believe.  Nay,  I  may  say  (and  without  irre- 
verence) that  He  cannot  compel  us  to  beHeve.  "Cannot;" 
because  He  has  made  us  on  conditions  which  do  not 
admit  of  compulsion  ;  and  from  these  conditions  He  will 
not,  of  course,  depart.  "  He  cannot  deny  Himself."  So 
He  influences  us  really  by  persuasion.  And  persuasion 
is  oftentimes  very  slow  work.  Men  have,  ere  now, 
changed  sides  in  matters  of  opinion ;  having  been  Chris- 
tians, they  have  become  unbelievers ;  or  having  been 
unbelievers,  they  have  become  Christians.  The  change 
itself  was  the  thing  of  a  moment.  It  was  done  instanta- 
neously. But  what  a  long  series  of  ponderings  and 
meditations,  of  mental  conflicts  and  strifes,  preceded  it 
and  prepared  the  way  for  it !  You  heap  weights  in  one 
of  the  scales  of  a  balance.  The  conditions  are  such  that 
you  cannot  put  in  many  at  a  time.  Your  task  is  one  of 
gradual  accumulation.  And  so  you  go  on  adding  first 
one  weight,  then  another,  then  a  third,  and  many  others, 
without  producing  any  appreciable  effect  upon  the  con- 
dition of  your  balance.  Presently,  however,  you  cast  in 
one,  ^nly  a  little  one,  and  the  scale  is  turned.  But  the 
last  weight  would  have  done  nothing  without  all  the 
previous  elaborate  preparation.  Now,  the  conditions  in 
the  case  of  the  human  spirit  are  these  :  that  God  will  not 
and  cannot  force  the  reception  of  Himself  upon  us ;  that 
He  leaves  us  the  awful  power  of  resisting  and  rejecting 
Him.  And  therefore  in  the  individual  He  works  by  the 
slow  and  gradual  process  of  moral  suasion.  And  why 
not  so  also  on  the  larger  scale  of  the  national  life  ?  We 
cannot  see  why  not.     Unless  God  works  on  the  human 


3i8       TJie  Gradual  Unfolding  of  Revelation. 

spirit  by  compulsion,  offering  no  choice,  and  permitting 
no  power  of  disbelief, — a  supposition  impossible  by  the 
very  terms  of  creation, — we  must  surely  expect  to  find 
the  Christianization  of  the  world  a  gradual  process  ;  and 
we  must  surely  feel  that  it  is  not  for  us  to  decide  by  what 
gradations,  whether  slower  or  more  rapid,  the  work  shall 
proceed. 

Gentlemen,  I  have  done.  How  far  I  have  really  met 
your  difficulties  on  this  subject,  I  cannot  tell.  I  shall 
be  glad  if  anything  I  have  said  should  obtain  your 
approval.  I  hope  I  have  not  been  betrayed  into  any 
theological  bitterness.  If  I  have  been,  or  if  you  should 
think  I  have  been,  pray  forgive  me.  Of  course,  I  should 
like  to  find  that  my  arguments  are  better  than  your 
arguments ;  but,  above  all  things,  I  wish  to  be  brotherly. 
And  now  that  the  discussion  is  about  to  begin,  let  me 
say  that  we  do  think  it  a  little  hard  that  Christianity 
is  so  often  endangered  by  the  very  blessings  which  we 
believe  her  to  have  conferred  upon  mankind.  The  poet 
speaks  of  the  eagle  stretched  upon  the  plain,  and  feeJing 
the  bitterness  of  the  death-pang  increased  at  the  sight  of 
his  own  feathers  on  the  arrow  that  is  drinking  his  life-blood. 
Well,  that  is  poetry,  of  course.  But  the  idea  conveyed 
in  the  verses  may  illustrate  the  feeling  of  some  amongst 
us,  when  we  see  the  intellect  to  which  Christianity  has 
given  its  acuteness,  brandished  against  her  life  ;  when  we 
find  the  nobler,  purer,  kindlier  sentiments  which  she 
has  herself  inspired  and  fostered,  turned  into  arguments 
against  her  character,  into  instruments  for  her  destruction 
and  overthrow. 


THE    PERFECTION    OF    THE    HUMAN 
CHARACTER  OF  JESUS  CHRIST. 


REV.    CANON    BARRY,    D.D., 

PRINCIPAL   OF    king's   COLLEGE,    Lt  NDON. 


The    Perfection    of  the   Human 
Character  of  yesus  Christ. 


I  AM  to  speak  to-night  on  a  very  old  subject — the 
Perfection  of  the  Human  Character  of  Jesus  Christ. 
You  probably  know — for  certainly  this  present  age  realizes 
it  in  an  especial  degree — what  a  wonderful  power  there  is 
in  the  character  of  a  living  man,  whether  you  learn  it 
through  your  own  personal  experience,  or  read  it  in  the 
pages  which  reproduce  it  as  a  living  thing,  when  he  him- 
self has  long  passed  away.  If,  in  some  noble  picture 
gallery,  such  as  that  which  is  open  to  us  at  Bethnal 
Green  at  this  moment,  you  even  look  upon  the  face  of 
one  who  lived  in  the  past,  you  know  how  you  seem  to 
understand  his  history  and  the  history  of  his  time  better. 
What  otherwise  would  seem  to  you  cold  and  distant 
starts  into  warmth  and  life.  But  a  true  biography,  espe- 
cially if  it  is  practically  written  by  the  man  himself,  in  his 
words  as  well  as  his  deeds,  is  a  picture  of  his  real  self, 
not  as  it  comes  out  obscurely  in  his  outward  form,  but  as 
it  exists  within,  at  least  so  far  as  other  eyes  than  his  own 
can  see  it.  And  you  will  always  find  that  it  is  through 
such  a  picture  of  a  human  life  that  you  can  understand 
best  the  great  Laws  of  Humanity  and  therefore  of  the 
Power — whatever  it  is — that  rules  Humanity.      Partly 

21 


322  The  Perfection  of  the 

because,  instead  of  floating  vaguely  as  it  were  on  the 
clouds  above  us,  they  are  brought  down  and  visibly  em- 
bodied in  a  man  like  ourselves.  Partly  because,  after  all, 
a  man  has  in  him  something  deeper  and  greater  than 
even  the  principles  which  he  holds,  and  by  which  he 
lives ;  and  therefore,  much  as  we  think  of  him  and 
know  of  him,  we  always  feel  that  there  is  in  him  an 
inner  fulness  of  being,  which  it  is  beyond  us  to  compre- 
hend and  to  analyse. 

It  must  be  therefore  at  all  times  and  to  all  men,  what- 
ever they  think  or  believe,  a  work  of  surpassing  interest — 
and,  I  think  I  may  add,  of  a  reverent  and  wondenng 
interest — to  contemplate  the  Life  which  beyond  all  contra- 
diction has  produced  consequences  infinitely  beyond 
those  which  have  flowed  from  all  other  lives  put  together. 
And  to  those  who  study  it  rightly  as  a  life,  the  true  interest 
lies  in  its  exhibition  of  His  character.  For  this  is  always 
the  kernel  of  the  interest  in  all  stories  of  great  and  noble 
lives.  He  is  but  a  poor  dramatist,  who,  even  in  fiction, 
makes  all  interest  turn  on  plot,  costume,  situation,  and 
dwells  not  chiefly  on  the  characters  of  his  play.  He  is 
but  a  shallow  writer  or  reader  of  a  biography,  who  tries 
not  chiefly  to  understand,  not  merely  what  the  man  did, 
but  what  he  himself  was.  My  subject  therefore  to-night 
— the  character  of  Jesus  Christ — must  always  be  a  sub 
ject  of  the  very  deepest  interest  to  all  who  really  care  to 
know  humanity. 

But,  of  course,  I  need  not  say  that  it  is  not  for  that 
reason  that  I  speak  of  it  to-night.  A  busy  man  myself, 
and  speaking  to  those  whose  lives  are  busy,  I  should  not 
have  time  or  inclination  for  a  subject  of  a  leisurely  and 
speculative  interest.  These  Lectures  have  one  object, 
and  one  only.     They  are  given  by  men  who  profoundly 


.  Human  Character  of  Jesus  Christ.        323 

believe  that  in  Christianity  and  Christ  there  is  a  real 
Di\^ine  Power,  which  can  and  which  does  transform  the 
individual,  and  pervade  the  whole  mass  of  society,  to 
make  it  truer,  better,  happier  than  it  could  otherwise  be, 
in  this  life  and  on  the  other  side  of  the  grave;  and  who, 
profoundly  believing  this,  seek  to  bring  before  your 
minds  and  consciences  what  is  to  them  the  life  of  their 
life,  with  no  purpose  whatever,  except  what  they  hold 
to  be  the  good  of  man  and  the  glory  of  God.  Now 
it  is  because  the  Perfection  of  the  character  of  Jesus 
Christ  is  one  of  the  various  forces  which  have  drawn 
men  to  Him,  that  it  has  been  resolved  to  include  it 
among  the  subjects  of  these  Lectures,  and  that  I  am  to 
try  to  put  it  before  you  to-night 

It  seems  to  me  that  we  may  put  the  general  case  ot 
Christian  evidence  thus.  As  you  look  on  human  society 
at  the  present  day,  you  find  Christianity  to  be  a  great 
fact,  which,  whether  you  like  it  or  not,  is  full  of  a  far- 
spreading  and  deep-reaching  power  over  men's  thoughts 
and  lives.  It  has  so  entwined  itself  with  all  the  civili- 
zation of  the  present,  that  when — as  lately  at  Paris — men 
sought  to  alter  the  whole  form  and  basis  of  that  civiUza- 
tion,  they  attacked  Christianity  with  a  vehement  and 
almost  frantic  determination.  You  find,  again,  a  Society 
called  after  the  name  of  Christ,  existing  under  different 
forms  in  every  race  and  climate — through  every  age  and 
under  every  circumstance  of  life.  It  has  expressed  itself  in 
visible  fabrics  and  institutions ;  it  is  a  society  really  and  ab- 
solutely "International,"  only  including,  not  one  class,  but 
many.  Now,  these  two  great  facts — Christianity  and  the 
Church  of  Christ — have  to  be  accounted  for :  and,  if  you 
ask  Christianity  itself  what  it  is  based  upon,  and  whereby  it 
exists,  the  answer  will  come  at  once — that  it  is  based  on 


324  The  Perfection  of  the 

the  Life  of  Christ.  Its  creed,*  so  far  as  it  is  distinctively 
Christian,  is  not  one  of  doctrines — if  by  doctrines  you 
mean  theories  and  speculations, — but  of  facts  of  that 
life,  which  claim  to  be  true,  and  to  be  of  infinite  con- 
sequence because  they  are  true.  Now  what  are  these 
things  which  call  themselves  facts  ? 

It  is  clear,  that  when  we  speak  of  the  facts  of  any 
man's  life,  there  are  two  kinds  of  facts,  which  I  may  call 
visible  and  invisible.  There  is,  for  instance,  with  regard 
to  yourselves,  a  certain  series  of  facts  about  you  happen- 
ing every  day,  which  any  one  who  is  near  you,  if  he 
will,  can  see ;  and  about  which  there  is  only  one  question, 
whether  they  are  false,  or  whether  they  are  true.  You  did 
something,  or  you  did  not  do  it ;  you  suffered  something, 
or  you  did  not  suffer  it ;  you  lived  through  such  and  such 
a  time,  or  you  died ;  and  the  like.  But  there  are  in- 
visible facts  about  you,  which  no  one  but  yourself  knows 
perfectly,  and  which  others,  we  say,  can  see  "  only  so 
far  as  they  have  eyes  to  see."  You  did  such  and  such  a 
thing  with  this  or  that  motive.  The  existence  of  the 
motive  is  just  as  much  a  fact  as  the  doing  of  the  thing ; 
but  those  who  look  on  can  see  it  only  in  various  degrees, 
according  to  their  intelligence,  or  still  more  according  to 
their  sympathy  j  you,  and  you  only,  actually  know  it.  Or, 
again,  such  and  such  effects  followed  on  your  act ;  and 
their  following  was  as  much  a  fact  as  the  act  itself.  But 
here  it  is  only  in  varying  degrees,  and  in  all  cases  with 
imperfection,  that  you  or  any  one  else  can  trace  these 
effects.  Just  in  proportion  as  any  man  enters  into  what 
we  call  the  "  laws  "  of  the  world  and  humanity,  and  has 
time  to  look  for  forward  and  backward  over  the  stream 

*  I  refer,  of  course,  to  the  Apostles'  Creed — the  only  one  which 
the  Church  of  England  makes  the  test  of  simple  membership. 


Human  Character  of  Jesus  Christ,        325 

of  events,  he  will  see  them,  more  or  less.  But  the  only- 
Eye,  which  can  see  them  universally  and  unmistakeably,  is 
clearly  an  eye  placed  above  them  all,  and  therefore  able 
to  pierce  into  every  nook  and  every  depth  of  history. 

Now  the  life  of  Jesus  Christ  is  full  of  both  these 
visible  and  invisible  facts.  I  must  digress  for  a  mo 
ment  to  explain  how  I  know  anything  of  that  Hfe. 
We  have  it  recorded  to  us,  as  you  know,  in  certain 
books  which  we  call  the  Gospels ;  these  profess  to 
be  directly  or  indirectly  the  work  of  eye-witnesses ; 
and  they  undoubtedly  represent  it  with  a  vividness 
and  minuteness,  of  which  only  simple  eye-witness,  or 
a  power  of  fiction  of  almost  superhuman  genius,  is  capa- 
ble. But  we  ought  to  understand  and  remember  that 
these  Gospels  are  only  the  representatives  of  a  great 
number  of  traditions  as  to  the  life  of  Jesus  Christ,  which 
were  held  by  hundreds  and  thousands  in  the  time  im- 
mediately following  that  life,  and  held  with  such  extra- 
ordinary certainty  and  vividness,  that  men  gave  up  all  and 
faced  death  on  the  strength  of  their  belief  in  them,  and — 
what  is  perhaps  stranger  still — found  in  them  (so  they 
said)  the  reason  and  the  power  of  a  complete  change  of 
heart  and  life.  They  come  to  us,  then,  not  merely  on 
their  own  intrinsic  evidence  as  ancient  books, — although, 
even  in  this,  I  am  bold  to  say  they  would  be  absolutely 
unquestioned,  if  it  were  not  that  they  dealt  withthe  super- 
natural— but  also  with  the  reflected  light  of  an  ancient 
and  universal  Christian  belief  in  the  first  ages,  which 
indeed  was  the  power  which  gave  birth  to  the  Church 
itself.  I  allude  only  to  these  things ;  for  it  is  not  my 
business  to-night  to  enter  into  any  critical  questions  about 
them.  When  I  speak  of  the  Hfe  of  Christ,  I  speak  of  it 
as  it  is  recorded  to  us  in  the  Gospels,  and  as  it  actually 


326  The  Perfection  of  the 

passed  into  the  belief,  and  moulded  the  whole  character 
of  Christianity. 

I  return  from  this  digression  to  the  Life  itself.  It  has  in 
it  certain  visible  and  certain  invisible  facts ;  so  far  it  is 
like  other  lives.  But  if  it  be  what  it  is  on  all  hands 
allowed  to  be,  it  is  likely  that  while  the  visible  facts 
remain  a  fixed  quantity,  the  invisible  facts  will  extend 
almost  infinitely.  How  little  can  an  ignorant  peasant 
see  of  the  life  of  a  great  poet  or  a  great  philosopher  !  How 
infinitely  less  could  any  human  eye  see  of  a  life  which 
undoubtedly  rises,  by  common  consent,  far  above  the  level 
of  ordinary  humanity ! 

There  are,  first,  certain  visible  facts — such  as  His  birth 
at  Bethlehem,  His  actual  ministry  in  Galilee  and  Jerusa- 
lem, His  death  upon  the  cross,  which  were  open  to  the 
observation  of  all.  They  correspond  to  that  public  com- 
mon-place part  of  our  own  life,  which  everybody  knows. 
There  were  (so  say  the  Gospels)  certain  other  visible 
facts,  seen  only  by  the  Apostles,  especially  the  great 
fact  that  He  rose  on  the  third  day  from  the  grave,  and 
that  He  ascended  into  heaven ;  which  I  may  remark,  in 
passing,  was  just  the  one  fact  on  which  all  the  earliest 
•preaching  of  Christianity  turned.  These  correspond  to 
that  deeper  and  more  sacred  private  life,  which  only  those 
near  and  dear  to  us  know,  and  which  the  world,  if  it  re- 
ceives it  at  all,  has  to  receive  on  their  testimony. 

But  beyond  these  there  are  what  claim  to  be  invisible 
facts  connected  with  that  life,  on  which  indeed  the 
meaning  of  the  visible  facts  depends,  and  which  can  be 
learnt  only  from  the  words  of  Jesus  Christ  Himself,  or 
those  whom  He  expressly  taught.  The  birth  (so  says 
Christian  belief)  was  an  Incarnation  of  the  Deity ;  the 
death  upon  the  cross  was  an  Atonement  for  sin;  the 


Human  Character  of  Jesus  Christ.        327 

rising  from  the  grave,  and  the  ascending  up  on  high,  were 
the  manifestation  and  beginning  of  a  new  spiritual  Hfe, 
conquering  sin  and  death  for  all  humanity.  Who  can 
assure  us  that  they  were?  The  answer  ultimately 
is  "Jesus  Christ  Himself."  "Why  should  we  believe 
Him  ?  ^'  is  the  next  question.  And  the  answer  brings 
out  the  various  signs  of  truth,  which  led  men  to  Him, 
and  which,  as  usual  in  all  cases  of  faith  in  men,  induced 
men  to  believe  from  Him  what  He  alone  could  know,  and 
what  those  who  received  it  could  at  best  verify  by  their 
experience  of  its  effects. 

Now  the  perfection  of  the  character  of  Jesus  Christ 
bears  upon  both  these  classes  of  facts.  In  itself  it  is  simply 
a  deduction  from  the  records  of  the  visible  facts — the 
actual  deeds,  words,  and  events  which  the  Gospels  record 
to  us.  Those  who  have  read  the  well-known  book  called 
"  Ecce  Homo,"  will  remember  that  it  is  brought  out  there 
in  that  way,  by  a  thoughtful  man  following  Jesus  of  Naza- 
reth, from  the  moment  of  His  baptism  to  the  end  of  His 
earthly  life,  looking  at  the  story  with  the  eyes  of  clear 
modern  insight,  and  drawing  out  from  it  the  features  of 
the  character.  But  it  also  finds  its  place  among  the  signs 
which  bid  us  place  faith  in  all  that  He  Himself  tells  us 
of  what  I  call  the  invisible  facts  of  life.  No  one  doubts 
for  a  moment  the  importance  of  a  knowledge  of  character 
n  producing  such  faith.  Few  of  us,  perhaps,  know 
more  than  two  or  three  men,  in  whose  account,  even  of 
external  facts,  much  more  of  their  own  feelings  and 
motives,  we  can  place  an  implicit  confidence.  Why? 
Because,  intellectually  or  morally,  their  characters  are  too 
imperfect.  But  if  we  knew  a  man  who,  even  compara- 
tively to  ourselves,  was  perfect  in  wisdom  and  knowledge, 
perfectly  truthful  and  pure  and  loving,  we  should  place 


328  The  Perfection  of  the 

a  confidence  in  him,  practically  almost  unbounded,  even  in 
regions  beyond  our  own  knowledge  ;  unless,  indeed,  he 
contradicted  the  sacred  laws  of  morality  or  the  unchange- 
able laws  of  truth. 

Hence  it  is  that  the  perfect  character  of  the  Christ  has 
always  been  so  important  a  ground  of  faith  in  Him. 
His  own  challenge  has  remained  :  "Which  of  you  convicts 
me  of  sin?  And  if  I  say  the  truth,  why  do  ye  not 
believe  me?"  It  does  not  indeed  standalone.  There 
are  other  signs.  There  are  the  signs  of  miracle,  culmi- 
nating in  the  Resurrection,  which — let  men  refine  as  they 
will, — are  signs  as  far  as  they  go,  and  would  be  felt  as 
signs  to-day,  just  as  truly  as  eighteen  hundred  years  ago. 
There  are  the  intrinsic  beauty  and  power  of  the  teaching 
itself,  unlocking  to  men  so  many  of  the  problems  of 
hfe,  and  producing  in  their  souls  such  wonderful  spiritual 
changes.  But  the  perfection  of  character  is  one  of  the 
signs;  perhaps  it  is  the  one  which  most  drew  men  to 
Him  at  first,  and  which  has  most  drawn  men  ever 
since. 

Now  it  is  clear  that  the  term  perfection  is  a  relative 
term  :*  its  absolute  meaning  depends  upon  the  nature 
to  which  it  is  attributed.  It  is  as  a  well-rounded 
circle,  the  size  of  which  must  depend,  not  on  the  accu- 
racy of  the  circumference,  but  on  the  radius  with  which 
it  is  described.  The  perfection  of  a  brute  creature  is 
different  from  the  perfection  of  a  man ;  and  the  perfection 

*  This  was  the  only  part  of  the  lecture  which  was  really  criticised 
in  the  ensuing  discussion — a  discussion  otherwise  touching  on  detached 
points,  and  not  attempting  to  deal  with  the  main  principle  of  the 
life  of  Christ.  But  the  criticism  decidedly  mistook  its  meaning,  and 
seemed  to  take  the  term  "relative,"  as  though  it  meant  deficient 
in  perfection. 


Human  Character  of  Jesus  Christ.        329 

of  man,  in  various  narrower  spheres  of  his  life,  will  be 
different  from  the  perfection  which  includes  it  all.  Thus,  a 
perfect  workman  is  perfect  relatively  to  the  work  which  he 
has  to  do  ;  and  the  value  of  his  perfection  varies  with  the 
value  and  dignity  of  his  work.  Again,  he  may  be  abso- 
lutely perfect  as  a  workman,  and  yet,  if  he  limits  himself 
only  to  his  work,  most  imperfect  as  a  man.  Moreover, 
I  would  notice  particularly  that  a  man  is  seldom  perfect 
in  any  sphere,  unless  he  can  go  beyond  that  sphere.  No 
man,  for  example,  can  teach  perfectly  all  that  he  knows  ; 
he  wants  a  store  of  knowledge  beyond  his  teaching,  in 
order  to  make  that  teaching  masterly  and  simple.  Few 
men,  if  any,  are  perfect  in  technical  education,  who  have 
no  general  culture  beyond  it.  Few  are  perfect  as  fathers 
or  husbands,  who  have  no  thoughts  beyond  their  famiUes ; 
few  are  much  more  than  hack-politicians,  if  their  minds 
are  quite  absorbed  in  the  circle  of  politics. 

If,  therefore,  we  speak  of  the  perfection  of  the 
human  character  of  Jesus  Christ,  we  must,  of  course, 
consider  that  perfection  as  relating  to  human  nature,  as 
such,  and  covering  all  the  aspects  of  His  life  as  man ;  we 
may  next  be  prepared  to  infer  it  to  be  at  least  probable 
that,  if  He  was  perfect  in  the  whole  sphere  of  human 
nature  and  life,  this  was  because  He  could  in  some  way 
go  beyond  it. 

The  only  difficulty  before  us  is,  that — human  nature 
beuig  what  it  is— the  perfection,  which  implies  balance 
and  harmony,  often  strikes  us  less  than  the  imperfection, 
great  in  one  direction,  and  Httle  in  another,  out  of  which 
arise  vehemence  and  discord.  What  we  call  a  marked 
character  is  one  which  is  strikingly,  sometimes  almost 
amusingly,  out  of  proportion.  We  are  apt  to  mistake 
force  in  repose  for  weakness,  and  balance  of  various  ener- 


330  The  Perfection  of  the 

gies  for  languidness  and  tameness  in  all.  The  pure 
white  light,  in  which  all  colours  are  blended,  is  more 
difficult  to  describe,  and  perhaps  less  striking  in  its 
beauty  to  a  casual  observer,  than  the  brilliant  red  or 
blue,  which  tells  of  the  excess  of  one  colour  and  the 
absorption  of  another.  Still,  in  spite  of  this  difficulty, 
let  us  endeavour  to  consider  the  character  in  two  or 
three  of  the  aspects  in  which  it  presents  itself  to  us. 

There  are,  perhaps,  three  chief  ways  of  looking  at  a 
character.  1  he  first  is  to  estimate  its  general  tone  and 
impress ;  the  second  is  to  examine  it  in  its  component 
parts  and  its  various  relations  ;  the  third  (which,  how- 
ever, leads  to  another  subject)  to  consider  its  view  of 
the  great  aim  of  life,  and  the  degree  of  its  devotion 
to  it. 

Of  these  I  will  dwell  for  a  time  on  the  first  and  second. 
I  will  content  myself  with  a  glance  at  the  third. 

Let  us  consider  the  character  of  Christ  first  in  relation 
to  its  general  tone  and  impress.  If  you  consider  any 
human  being,  you  have  always  to  look  at  him  first  in 
his  own  individual  peculiarity  of  stamp,  which  makes  him 
his  true  self — like  others,  but  not  absolutely  identical  with 
any  other.  Then  you  have  next,  perhaps,  to  consider  him 
as  he  is  affected  by  race,  age,  circumstances,  in  what  we 
call  national  character,  or  even  class  character ;  for  that 
these  characters  are  marked  and  real,  although  they  may 
be  difficult  rigidly  to  define,  no  observer  of  human  Hfe  can 
doubt.  But,  underneath  both  these,  there  is  always  the 
basis  of  true  humanity,  like  the  great  principles  of  construc- 
tion of  a  building,  which  are  seen  through  the  various  forms 
of  original  design  and  architectural  style.  In  this  humanity 
his  character  is  in  full  harmony  with  the  characters  of  his 
fellow-men,  open  for  them  to  appreciate,  open  to  sympa- 


Human  Character  of  Jesus  Christ.        331 

thise  with  them.  Just  as  it  is  with  the  human  face,  so 
with  the  human  nature.  No  two  faces  in  this  room  are 
aUke  \  each  is  perfectly  individual.  Yet,  through  all,  in 
various  degrees,  there  is  traceable  the  English  cast  of 
countenance  ;  we  could  not  be  mistaken  for  an  assembly 
of  any  other  nation.  And  all  the  faces  are  accordant 
to  the  general  human  type,  one  in  its  structure  and  essen- 
tial characteristics,  which  is  to  be  seen  in  all  races,  from 
the  highest  to  the  lowest.  So  it  is  with  the  human 
nature ;  and  that  human  nature  is  perfect,  in  which  indi- 
viduality and  universal  humanity  always,  and  the  inter- 
mediate national  characteristics  sometimes,  are  truly 
harmonized.  We  all  desire  to  be  our  true  selves,  and  to 
be  true  men ;  we  may,  or  may  not,  desire  in  any  par- 
ticular matter  to  be  true  Englishmen  ;  in  most  things  we 
rejoice  to  feel  our  nationality ;  but  there  are  some  pur- 
poses for  which  we  desire  to  sink  it. 

Now  the  character  of  Jesus  Christ  is  certainly  most 
marvellously  harmonized  in  its  individual  and  its 
universal  humanity.  No  character  certainly  is  more 
eminently  individual,  and  therefore  more  entirely  self- 
consistent  under  all  circumstances,  and  at  all  periods  of 
life.  I  have  often  thought  it  a  very  striking  illustration 
of  this,  that  in  all  pictures,  from  the  greatest  masterpiece 
to  the  merest  daub,  with  many  varieties  of  tone,  one 
characteristic  type  is  preserved.  It  is  not  a  matter  of 
tradition.  In  early  days  men  shrank  from  any  attempt  at 
portraiture ;  if  He  was  pictured  at  all,  it  was  in  symbol, 
as  the  Good  Samaritan,  for  example,  or,  oftener  still,  the 
Good  Shepherd.  And  it  is  a  curious  fact,  that  in  those 
days  there  was  a  discussion  as  to  his  actual  likeness,  one 
party  contending  for  His  personal  beauty  and  dignity, 
and  another  asserting  (by  a  literal  interpretation  of  Scrip- 


332  The  Perfection  of  the 

ture  prophecy)  that  His  form  was  uncomely  and  His  face 
contemptible.  The  representatiou  of  Him,  which  exists 
now,  is,  I  cannot  doubt,  ideal — that  is,  it  is  an  outward 
representation  of  what  is  gathered  to  be  His  inward  cha- 
racter ;  and,  I  repeat,  its  strong  individuality  and  unity 
of  type  is  just  a  visible  expression  of  the  individuality 
and  unity  of  His  character.  It  is  a  character  certainly 
unlike  all  others.  Compare  with  it  the  characters  of  the 
founders  of  other  religions,  so  far  as  we  know  them, 
a  Mohammed  or  a  Buddha;  or  compare  with  it  even 
the  characters  of  the  Bible  Revelation — Prophet,  Law- 
giver, Apostle.  You  cannot  for  one  moment  confuse 
it  with  them.  It  stands  out  quite  unique  and  individual. 
And  as  you  trace  it  on  through  the  Gospel,  from  the 
early  childhood  through  every  event  of  the  ministry  to 
the  condemnation  and  the  cross,  it  never  varies,  although 
it  grows  and  develops.  Everywhere  He  is  His  true 
self  In  each  contingency  we  can,  faintly,  but  not  incor 
rectly,  surmise  what  He  will  do  or  say;  and  after  the 
event,  we  find  that  the  reality  has  infinitely  transcended, 
but  has  not  contradicted,  our  expectations.  I  may  remark 
in  passing,  that  this  is  one  thing  which  convinces  a 
reader  of  the  Gospels  that  he  is  there  tracing  the  history 
of  a  real  living  Man.  But  at  present  I  am  only  con- 
cerned with  the  point,  that  in  this  strong  deep  indi- 
viduality we  have  one  side  of  Perfection. 

Nor  is  the  other  less  marked.  I  mean  the  true  uni- 
versal humanity  in  it,  through  which  there  come  out 
those  great  principles,  moral  and  intellectual — those  aspi- 
rations, conceptions,  beliefs  —  with  which  all  human 
nature  everywhere  sympathises.  It  has  become  a  com- 
monplace, that  every  one  traces  in  the  Christ  some- 
thing of  the  character  and  principles  which  he  loves 


Human  Character  of  Jesus  Christ.        333 

best*  You  may  think  this  natural  in  us  who  worship 
Him  as  our  Master,  and  desire  absolutely  to  follow  Him. 
But  it  is  not  confined  to  us.  I  notice  that  those  who  stand 
quite  aloof  from  Christianity,  nevertheless  claim  to  under- 
stand and  to  sympathise  with  the  Christ.  I  notice  that 
those  who  revolt  against  existing  types  of  Christianity, 
always  appeal  to  Him  against  them.  There  is  a  book 
now  lying  on  every  table,  the  very  title  of  which  is  a  kind 
of  parody  on  His  name,  and  which  has  for  its  object  to 
make  Him  the  impersonation,  not  of  religion  in  any 
ordinary  sense,  but  of  universal  communism  and  social- 
istic fraternity.  Now  this  universality  is  a  wonderful 
element  of  perfection.  You  know  how  all  but  impossible 
it  is  to  have  perfect  sympathy  with  the  character  of  any 
living  man  whom  we  know  in  the  flesh,  or  even  of  any  writer 
whom  we  know  in  the  spirit.  There  is  always  something 
that  jars,  something  which  disappoints  or  repels.  Nor  is 
this  simply  from  our  own  fault  or  imperfection.  We 
never,  indeed,  even  approach  to  perfect  sympathy,  ex- 
cept with  a  character  which  can  enfold  ours,  because  it 
is  larger  and  deeper  than  ours;  but  that  we  do  not  attain  it 
arises,  at  least  in  part,  from  the  imperfectionof  others,  which 
limits  the  scope,  which  impairs  the  right  harmony,  of  cha- 
racter. Where  there  is  perfect  sympathy,  where  we  recog- 
nise in  any  nature  what  we  call  the  Ideal  Humanity,  i.e., 

*  I  leave  this  as  it  stood,  although  I  observed  by  the  discussion 
that  it  was  somewhat  misconceived,  as  though  I  said  that  each  man 
made  his  own  Christ.  What  is  the  truth,  and  what  I  have  tried  to 
express,  is,  that  each  man  sees  in  Him  the  aspect  of  humanity  which 
he  understands,  but  always  sees  much  more,  and,  according  to  his 
temper,  either  rejects  that  additional  element  as  unhistorical  or  a 
sign  of  imperfection,  or  learns  by  it  that  there  is  something  in  Jesus 
of  Nazareth  **  not  dreamt  of  in  his  philosophy." 


334  1^^^^  P defection  of  the 

what  we  all  can  conceive  more  or  less  perfectly,  and  see 
truly  but  imperfectly  realized — there  is  perfection.  He 
of  whom  we  speak,  said  once,  "  When  I  am  lifted  up," — 
and  that  was  when  His  manifestation  was  brought  to  its 
final  perfection, — "  I  will  draw  all  men  unto  Me  ;"  and, 
putting  aside  such  deeper  meaning  as  we  Christians  re 
cognise  in  His  words,  all  must  acknowledge  that,  in 
respect  of  sympathy  and  knowledge  of  Him,  that  declara- 
tion has  been  fulfilled,  and  that  its  fulfilment  is  a  sign  of 
the  perfection  of  His  human  character.  Greek,  Roman, 
Jew — each  represented  a  different  type  of  human  civi- 
lization, and  each  a  type  different  from  that  of  our 
modem  life.  All  claimed  Him  as  theirs,  and  yet  none 
could  claim  Him  as  exclusively  their  own.  The  simplest 
child  or  childlike  soul,  the  largest  philosophic  insight,  the 
highest  philanthropic  aspirations,  have  found  their  ideal 
in  Him ;  and  yet  again  none  could  ever  say  '  He  is  mine 
wholly ;  He  is  none  of  yours." 

Perhaps  it  may  strike  us  that  in  Him  the  tone  of 
national  and  local  character  was  less  strikingly  marked 
than  might  be  expected  from  perfection.  I  am  not  sure 
how  far  this  idea  rests  on  a  false  conception  of  what  the 
Jewish  character  in  its  noblest  form  really  was.*  But  so 
far  as  it  is  true,  we  can  see  the  reason  of  it :  partly  in  the 


♦  There  were  in  the  Jewish  faith,  and  therefore  reflected  in  the 
Jewish  character,  two  different  elements ;  the  one  exclusive,  resting 
on  the  covenant  of  God  with  Israel,  and  considering  all  without  as 
aliens ;  the  other  comprehensive,  recognising  God  as  the  Father  of 
all  men,  and  knowing  that  Israel  was  a  representative  of.  and  not  a 
substitute  for,  humanity.  The  true  Israelite  embodied  both,  and  the 
higher  and  deeper  his  character,  the  more  he  grasped  the  larger 
truth. 


Human  Character  of  Jesus  Christ.        335 

circumstances  of  His  life,  partly  in  the  nature  of  His 
work.  Partly  in  the  circumstances  of  His  life, — for  He 
lived  at  a  time  when,  under  the  universal  sway  of  the 
Roman  Empire,  there  were  no  such  things  as  real  nations, 
and  even  the  types  of  race  and  their  characteristics  were 
somewhat  faintly  marked.  The  one  true  nationality  that 
remained  was  certainly  the  Jewish;  but  this  had  so 
stiffened  into  formal  and  intolerant  exclusiveness,  that  it 
presented  nationality  under  a  false  type,  which  was  soon 
to  pass  away.  When  He  dwelt  upon  it  with  a  loving  and 
ardent  patriotism,  it  was  in  the  tears  that  He  shed,  and 
the  remonstrance  that  He  uttered,  over  Jerusalem.  But 
far  more  we  trace  the  reason  in  the  nature  of  His  work. 
That  work  was  to  be  a  strictly  universal  one,  not  only 
in  space,  but  in  time ;  and  it  is  -clear  that  the  national 
characteristics,  which  some  miss  in  Him,  and  the  merely 
political  and  social  works,  which  some  reproach  Him  for 
not  attempting,  must  have  hindered  this  universality  \  and 
purchased  immediate  vividness  of  effect,  at  the  price  of  uni- 
versal scope  and  permanence  of  result.  It  was  the  glory  of 
the  Gospel  that  under  it  there  was  "  neither  Greek  nor  Jew, 
Barbarian,  Scythian,  bond  nor  free."  That  glory  could 
hardly  have  been  achieved  if  the  character  of  the  Christ 
had  been  deeply  Jewish  and  oriental,  out  of  sympathy 
with  the  present  and  future  character  and  civilization  of 
the  West.  All  movements  which  aim  at  touching  all  hu- 
manity, even  French  Revolutions,  Positive  philosophies, 
International  societies,  and  the  like,  must  in  great  degree 
sink  nationality.  Nations  pass  away ;  and,  while  they 
last,  are,  and  must  be,  exclusive.  What  never  dies  is  the 
individual  and  the  race.  A  character  which  is  perfect 
may  or  may  not  clothe  itself  in  the  colouring  of  nationality. 
But  it  must  be  living  in  its  individuality ;  it  must  be  uni- 


336  The  Perfection  of  the 

versal  in  its  humanity.  Who  can  doubt  that  the  charac- 
ter of  the  Christ  is  both  ? 

But  pass  from  this,  which  we  may  call  the  tone  and  out- 
ward form  of  character,  to  the  character  itself  in  its  com- 
ponent parts,  and  their  harmony  with  each  other.  A  cha- 
racter is  perfect  which  meets  all  the  conditions,  and  fulfils 
all  the  relations  of  humanity.  Of  course,  it  is  clear  that 
these  relations  are  three — to  self,  to  men,  and  to  some- 
thing above  mankind,  whether  you  call  it  Nature,  or  Law, 
or  God.  Mostly,  as  we  see  men's  characters,  we  find 
that  one  or  other  of  these  relations  predominates.  There 
are  men  only  fit  to  live  alone,  and  mix  but  in  slight 
degree  with  their  fellow-men.  There  are  those  whose 
very  nature  is  social,  to  whom  solitude  is  hateful,  and 
destructive  to  their  best  energies.  There  are  lives  so 
absolutely  absorbed  in  the  higher  communion,  that  they 
lose  the  consciousness  of  themselves,  and  flee  from  the 
society  of  their  fellow-men.  But  the  perfect  human  cha- 
racter is  that  which  is  able  to  fulfil  all,  and  which  finds 
its  real  growth  in  the  harmonious  succession  or  coinci- 
dence of  all. 

What  are  the  qualities  which  belong  to  a  man,  so  far  as 
he  is  alone  ?  I  should  answer  :  Three — the  love  of  truth, 
the  spirit  of  purity,  and  the  spirit  of  manliness. 

In  the  study  and  conception  of  truth,  man  always  is 
and  must  be  alone,  although  he  use  the  thoughts  and 
teaching,  and  agree  in  the  conclusions  of  others;  he 
must  grasp  truth,  ponder  it,  make  it  (we  say)  his  own. 
Need  I  remind  you  that  the  whole  life  of  Jesus  Christ  was 
(so  He  said),  to  "  bear  witness  to  truth," — to  see  deep 
into  nature  and  man, — to  know  what  is  the  revelation  of 
God  ?  You  know  how  He  put  aside  all  the  traditions  and 
teaching  of  His  age ;  you  know  how  sternly  He  trampled 


Human  Character  of  Jesus  Christ.        337 

even  on  time-honoured  prejudices.  No  doubt  the  truth 
which  He  cared  for  was  not  the  truth  of  outward  nature  ; 
but  that  which  is  nearer  to  us,  the  truth  of  humanity  and 
the  truth  of  God.  But  it  is  clear  that  this  intense  pon- 
dering and  love  of  truth,  as  truth,  which  we  rightly 
regard  as  one  great  glory  of  our  time,  was  one  element, 
though  perhaps  at  times  we  forget  it,  in  the  character  of 
Jesus  Christ. 

Because  we  do  forget  it,  I  have  dwelt  on  it  for  a 
moment,  but  there  can  be  no  need  to  do  more  than 
glance  at  His  spotless  purity.  Purity  of  soul  is,  as  it 
seems  to  me,  the  love  of  all  that  is  good,  in  itself  and  for 
its  own  sake,  utterly  irrespective  of  what  its  results 
may  be,  not  even  consciously  regarding  its  relation  to  the 
good  of  man  or  the  glory  of  God.  And  in  that  purity  of 
soul  the  perfect  control  of  appetite  and  passion — the 
perfect  submission,  that  is,  of  the  flesh  to  the  spirit — is  a 
lower  subsidiary  element,  so  much  a  matter  of  course 
that  one  hardly  dreams  of  insisting  on  it.  Who  can 
doubt,  who  ever  has  doubted,  the  purity  of  Jesus  Christ  ? 
that  white  unsullied  soul,  which  passed  through  the  sin 
of  the  world,  and  even  through  the  company  of  the 
grossest  sinners,  uncontaminated  as  the  very  sunlight 
itself? 

But  it  may  seem  otherwise  as  to  "  manliness,"  which  I 
take  to  be  a  right  self-assertion — first,  the  consideration 
what  our  work  is,  what  our  rights  are,  what  our  duty  is, 
and  then,  the  concentration  of  all  our  energies  on  this 
one  single  thing.  No  doubt  it  is  true,  that,  living  at  a 
time  of  excessive  self-assertion,  which  ran  through  all  the 
noblest  heathen  morality,  and  even  travestied  itself  in  the 
religious  pride  of  the  Jew,  He  rather  took  such  manli- 
ness for  granted  (as  He  did  the  love  of  self  in  His  golden 

22 


338  The  Perfection  of  the 

rule),  in  order  to  manifest  and  to  teach  the  nobler,  the 
more  unselfish,  the  more  self-forgetful,  elements  of 
humility,  love,  sacrifice.  But  yet  who,  while  he  watches 
Him  in  all  the  humility  and  gentleness  of  His  life,  will 
fail  to  see  the  dignity,  the  calmness,  the  impressiveness, 
which  encircled  His  life,  and  which  asserted  itself  with- 
out the  trouble  of  conscious  self-assertion ,  which  could 
stoop  to  suffer  and  to  die,  but  could  not  stoop  to  flatter, 
to  palter,  or  to  coax  ?  "  Thou  regardest  not  the  person 
of  men,"  was  the  very  language  of  His  enemies.  I  know 
not  how  anything  could  better  express  the  spirit  of  true 
manliness ;  although  the  words  which  follow  ("  but 
teachest  us  the  way  of  God  in  truth  ")  show  how  it  was 
overshadowed  and  transfigured  by  a  higher  principle.* 

But,  if  we  pass  from  the  spirit  of  man  in  solitude  to 
the  spirit  of  man  in  his  relation  to  his  fellows,  what 
find  we  there  as  our  ruling  principles  ?  So  far  as  I  can 
see,  they  are  two — the  spirit  of  righteousness  and  the 
spirit  of  love.  Righteousness  is  that  which  recognises 
each  man  as  being  in  some  sense  alone,  although  in  con- 
tact with  others.  It  was  defined  long  ago  (by  Plato)  as 
the  "  doing  by  each  of  that  which  it  is  his  to  do." 
Clearly  it  is  the  spirit  which  lays  on  ourselves  and  on 
others  the  burden  of  the  inalienable  responsibility  of 
each  individual  soul,  which  refuses  to  bear  it  for  others, 

*  It  is  on  this  side  that  some  attack  has  been  made  on  Christian 
Morality,  which  professes  to  be  the  "Imitation  of  Christ."  It  is 
asserted  to  be  too  feminine  in  type,  and  to  disregard  the  mascuHne 
virtues,  especially  that  which  is  called  "manliness."  The  truth  as 
to  its  method  of  teaching  is,  I  believe,  indicated  in  the  text.  The 
result  of  that  teaching  may  be  seen  in  the  peculiar  forms  of  courage 
or  heroism  which  Christianity  has  fostered,  in  the  fortitude  of  martyr- 
dom, in  the  self-conquest  of  asceticism,  in  the  self-forgetful  heroism 
of  charity. 


Human  Character  of  Jesus  Christ        339 

and  asks  no  others  to  bear  it  for  us  ;  which  insists,  if  it 
be  our  part  to  insist,  that  well-doing  shall  meet  reward 
and  blessing,  that  ill-doing  shall  meet  with  punishment 
and  a  curse ;  which  is  impatient  of  all  laziness  and  indo- 
lence, all  sham  and  pretence,  which  stand  in  the  way  of 
this  doing  of  duty  by  each  man.  A  stern,  cold  grandeur 
encircles  it ;  and,  as  we  look  on  the  world  as  it  is,  with 
all  the  falsehoods  and  pretences  which  poison  it,  we 
feel  at  times  as  if  righteousness  and  it  alone  would  be 
sufficient  to  save. 

But  there  is  another  spirit  tempering  and  balancing 
this — the  spirit  of  love,  which  recognises  the  unity  of  all 
mankind,  compacted  by  a  thousand  ties ;  so  as  to  sink  and 
deny  self,  so  as  to  look  upon  the  burden  of  humanity  as 
one,  and  to  struggle,  as  for  a  privilege,  for  the  oppor- 
tunity to  bear  as  much  of  it  as  may  be.  Such  love  is, 
you  know,  our  first  instinct,  so  strong  that  it  may  over- 
bear all  righteousness,  and  may  even  become  unjust  and 
cruel  to  those  beyond  its  pale.  And  when  such  love  has 
been  (so  to  speak)  impregnated  by  reason  and  tempered 
by  conscience,  it  becomes  the  deepest  and  most  powerful 
of  all  principles,  which  has  done,  and  is  doing  every 
day  a  hundred  times  more  than  all  the  powers  of  selfish- 
ness, ten  times  more  than  even  the  sense  of  right  and 
duty.  Righteousness  in  Love,  and  Love  in  Righteousness 
— these  are  the  two  great  perfections  of  humanity,  when 
we  have  to  deal  with  our  fellow-men. 

What  shall  we  say  of  these  in  Jesus  Christ?  Again 
perhaps  we  may  allow  that  He  brought  out,  taught, 
manifested  especially,  the  power  of  love — partly  because 
it  was  so  forgotten  that  no  Greek  or  Roman  word  is 
ound  for  it  which  does  not  speak  either  of  individual 
preference    or   of  sensual  passion — partly  because   its 


340  The  Perfection  of  the 

uniting  and  harmonizing  power  was  most  appropriate 
to  the  work  of  salvation,  which  He  declared  to  be  the 
object  of  His  whole  life.  And  it  may  be  true — I  think  it 
is  true — that  we  have  sometimes  so  proclaimed  love  as 
Christ-like,  that  we  have  forgotten  the  sterner  element 
of  righteousness  ;  just  as  in  that  typical  face  of  which  I 
have  spoken,  all  but  the  greatest  painters  have  been 
tempted  to  make  all  too  soft,  gentle,  almost  feminine, 
and  to  obscure  the  sterner  and  more  massive  expression 
of  Righteousness.* 

But  who  that  reads  His  burning  words  of  indignation 
against  scribe  and  Pharisee — His  "  Get  thee  behind  me, 
Satan  ! "  even  to  the  loving  weakness  of  an  Apostle — 
His  deep,  solemn,  sorrowful  warning  of  the  wrath  to 
come — His  pictures  of  a  judgment,  always  going  on 
now,  but  to  be  complete  hereafter,  as  an  unalterable 
law  dependent  on  human  freedom  and  responsibility — 
who,  I  say,  will  doubt  that  it  is  our  own  error,  and  not 
the  true  record  of  His  life,  which  has  led  us  to  forget 
the  harmony  of  this  harder  and  sterner  righteousness 
with  the  glow  and  the  softness  of  love  ? 

But  there  is  a  third  relation  of  the  human  nature  to 
that  which  is  neither  within  it  nor  around  it,  but  above  it. 
It  seems  to  me  that  almost  all  modern  thought  recog- 
nises the  need  of  something,  which  it  calls  "religion;" 
that  is,  so  far  as  I  can  understand  it,  an  enthusiastic  de- 
votion to  some  power  above.  That  power  may  be  (as  one 
teaches)  the  power  of  the  universe ;  it  may  be  (as  another 

*  I  observed,  with  some  surprise,  that  these  sterner  elements  were 
supposed  to  be  inconsistent  with  charity  and  unworthy  of  the  Christ ; 
as  if  the  same  spirit  which  is  fervent  in  love  to  man  and  God,  must 
not,  even  for  love's  sake,  be  stern  and  indignant  against  all  oppres- 
sion, falsehood,  and  hypocrisy. 


Human  Character  of  Jesus  Christ.        341 

teaches)  the  culture  or  worship  of  humanity ;  but  in  any 
case  it  seems  allowed  that  the  human  nature  is  not  per- 
fect, if  it  does  not  hold  the  conviction  that  there  is  some- 
thing more  than  the  human  soul  itself,  and  the  society  of 
human  souls  in  which  it  shares.  Now  what  we  Christians 
mean,  what  Christ  Himself  meant  by  the  word,  was  not 
a  vague  idea  like  these,  but  the  belief  in  a  Divine,  living, 
personal  God,  the  Father  of  men,  on  whom  the  soul 
could  rest  in  trust,  even  in  what  passed  its  power  of  know- 
ledge, because  His  will  ruled  all  the  events  and  acts 
of  the  world,  and  because  His  Spirit  moved  over  all  the; 
spirits  of  men.  And  this  conviction,  I  may  remark  in 
passing,  is  the  only  form  of  a  belief  in  a  higher  power, 
which  has  lived  with  a  vital  and  energetic  force  through 
all  ages,  which  can  come  home  alike  to  the  simplest  and 
wisest  soul,  which  can  embody  itself  in  the  noblest  and 
the  homeliest  life. 

What  is  the  perfection  of  humanity  in  this  last  great 
relation?  Surely  just  the  spirit  which  we  call  that  of 
sonship — the  mixture  of  an  intense  and  adoring  reverence 
with  a  sense  of  freedom  and,  if  I  may  dare  so  to  say,  of 
familiarity.  It  is  a  spirit  which  can  manifest  itself  per- 
fectly only  in  the  conviction  of  this  as  a  directly  per- 
sonal relation ;  but  still  it  has  its  counterparts,  though 
they  be  somewhat  shadowy  and  vague,  in  those  other 
paler  conceptions  of  religion,  which  modern  thought 
would  substitute  for  it.  Need  I  say  to  you  how  entirely 
perfect  that  relation  was  in  the  life  of  Jesus  Christ  ?  It 
was  a  relation  in  which  He  moved — free,  glad,  confident, 
and  yet  so  absorbed  into  the  greatness  and  solemnity  of 
the  presence  of  God,  that  all  human  companionship,  all 
self- consciousness,  vanished  in  it.  "  Alone,  (He  said)  He 
was  not  alone,  because  God  was  with  Him."     In  that 


342  The  Perfection  of  the 

communion  He  declared  that  He  found  the  secret  and 
safeguard  of  all  other  perfection.  The  true  Son  of  man, 
He  said,  was  the  true  Son  of  God. 

I  have  tried  to  set  before  you  in  this  way  some  aspects 
of  His  perfect  human  character,  and  yet  all  the  while  I 
shrink  from  the  task.  It  seems  like  dissecting  a  living 
body,  or  analysing  into  prose  the  grand  music  of  a  poem. 
But,  even  so,  we  may  see  something  of  the  great  structure 
of  its  perfection,  and  see  how  it  underlies  the  living 
beauty  and  majesty,  before  which  millions  of  souls  have 
bowed. 

There  is  much  that  might  still  be  said,  as,  for  example, 
of  the  perfection  of  the  aim  of  His  ministry  in  life  and 
death,  uniting  the  culture  and  regeneration  of ,  the  indi- 
vidual with  the  renewal  of  the  social  life  of  humanity ; 
and  so  bringing  together  the  two  objects,  which  bareindi 
vidualism  and  bare  socialism  pursue  singly,  with  the 
certain  result,  through  their  exclusiveness  and  narrowness, 
of  failure  and  disaster.  The  one  deals  with  the  undoubted 
fact  that  all  men  are  unequal  and  unlike — each  a  whole 
in  himself — each  needing  freedom  to  grow  separately — 
each  needing  to  be  treated  in  his  own  peculiar  way. 
The  other  deals  with  the  equally  natural  fact  of  equality 
of  rights  and  unity  of  mankind,  in  virtue  of  which  no 
man  lives  or  dies  to  himself;  so  that  the  individual  ought 
to  sacrifice  himself,  though  not  to  be  sacrificed,  on  the 
altar  of  society.  His  aim  in  life  brought  out  both  these 
together,  because  it  viewed  them  both  as  parts  of  a 
greater  aim — the  manifestation  of  the  glory  of  God,  who 
is  the  God  at  once  of  individual  and  of  race.  But  this  line 
of  thought  I  can  but  indicate;  others  I  may  not  even  touch. 

For,  before  I  conclude,  I  must  urge  upon  you  one  more 
thought,  at  which  I  have  already  glanced.      It  is  this, 


Human  Character  of  Jestis  Christ.        345 

that  as  we  trace  the  full-orbed  circle  of  this  human  per- 
fection, there  is  something  always  crossing  us,  which  passes 
out  beyond  it,  and  shoots  across  its  brightness  with  a  still 
brighter  trail  of  light.  I  have  reminded  you  of  what  seems 
to  be  a  law  of  humanity,  that  no  one  can  fill  a  sphere  per- 
fectly, who  never  goes  beyond  it.  And  certainly,  in 
studying  the  character  of  Jesus  Christ,  we  are  struck  with 
a  wonderful  exhibition  of  this  law.  It  is  perfectly  clear 
that  while  He  is  perfect  as  man,  He  obviously  claims 
to  be  something  more — with  a  claim  which,  if  untrue, 
would  certainly  mar  that  perfection.  I  care  not  which 
Gospel  you  take — the  simplest  narrative  of  St.  Matthew, 
or  the  profoundest  discourse  of  St.  John  :  such  a  claim 
is  perfectly  obvious. 

To  some  degree,  however  reluctantly,  all  great  men 
have  to  assert  themselves,  slightly  in  teaching,  more  fully 
in  guiding  and  ruling.  There  is  a  kingship  of  men, 
which  is  a  burden,  but  which  must  be  borne.  It  is 
characteristic,  again,  of  any  who  claim  to  be  spokesmen 
of  a  religion,  that  they  must  speak  and  act  with  an 
authority  which  brooks  no  interference.  But  you  will 
observe  that,  as  a  rule,  all  merely  human  greatness  begins 
with  self-assertion,  and  ends  with  self-effacement.  It  is 
anxious  to  be  forgotten,  if  only  the  truth  we  proclaim 
may  be  held,  and  the  law  or  freedom  for  which  we  live 
be  recognised.  Most  of  all,  perhaps  those  who  desire  to 
be  prophets  delight  to  call  themselves  only  "Voices  of 
God;"  and  long  for  the  time  when  they  may  be  need- 
less, because  all  men  shall  know  without  their  having  to 
teach. 

But  in  Jesus  Christ,  and  in  Him  alone,  it  is  not  so. 
The  order,  so  to  speak,  is  reversed.  It  is  in  the  earliest 
part  of  His  teaching  that  He  Himself  is  unseen ;  it  is  in 


344  1^^^^  Perfection  of  the 

the  last  and  most  perfect  that  His  own  person  and  office 
are  asserted.  Clearly  this  is  a  phase  in  which  He  passes 
beyond  the  perfection  of  humanity,  either  to  rise  above 
or  to  sink  below  it.  Which  shall  it  be  ?*  The  answer 
must  depend  very  much  on  this,  whether  we  recognise 
faith  in  a  character  greater  than  our  own  as  a  true  prin- 
ciple of  human  life  ;  so  that  when  we  are  convinced 
of  that  greatness  and  superiority,  we  are  ready  to  believe 
in  it  when  it  passes  out  beyond  our  knowledge.  We 
study  the  works  of  some  great  man  of  genius,  who  shines 
in  the  transcendent  greatness  of  poetry  or  philosophy. 
Up  to  a  certain  point  we  fully  understand  and  delight  in 
him ;  beyond  this  he  passes  out  of  our  full  comprehen- 
sion. Shall  we  believe  or  laugh  ?  Shall  we  sit  at  his 
feet,  or  look  down  upon  him  to  criticise  ?  We  gaze  on  the 
life  of  one  whom  we  see  to  be  in  greatness  infinitely  beyond 
and  above  us.  Within  a  certain  range  we  understand 
him,  and  rejoice  in  his  greatness;  but  at  one  time  or 
another  he  does  something  which  we  do  not  understand, 
which  seems  to  us  perhaps  like  a  noble  rashness  or  the 
madness  of  excess  of  thought.  Shall  we  trust  him  or 
condemn  him?  Shall  we  follow  him  or  fall  away? 
The  question,  I  say,  is  whether  we  shall  apply  this  law — 
I  grant  in  a  transcendent  degree — to  the  life  of  Jesus 
Christ. 

If  we  have  at  all  realized  that  perfection,  which  I  have 
faintly  sketched  out,  and  if  at  the  same  time  we  have  felt 
the  converging  power  of  the  other  signs  of  His  authority, 

*  I  found,  as  I  expected,  that  tliis  self-assertion  and  the  declara- 
tion of  the  necessity  and  responsibility  of  faith  in  His  word  were  a 
cause  of  "offence."  It  is  no  doubt  here  that  mere  ''admirers"  ot 
Christ  and  believers  in  Christ  part  company.  The  question  is,  which 
course  is  more  reasonable,  and  more  accordant  with  the  actual  facts 
of  the  existence  and  power  of  Christianity  ? 


Human  Character  of  Jesus  Christ.        345 

— of  miracle  and  prophecy, — of  the  profound  wisdom 
and  simplicity  of  His  lower  teaching,  and  the  like — we 
shall  be  induced  to  say,  "  Lord,  to  whom  shall  we  go  ? 
Thou  hast  the  words  of  eternal  life."  We  shall  think 
that  we  see  that  He  cannot  lie,  cannot  be  deceived,  can- 
not sink  below  the  true  humanity :  and  then  we  shall 
infer  that  He  rises  above  it ;  we  shall  be  prepared  to 
believe  the  deepest  words  of  mystery  which  He  speaks ; 
and  so  not  only  shall  we  be  taught  of  Christ,  but  we  shall 
learn  Christ,  who  He  is,  and  what  He  is,  and  so  become 
Christians  indeed. 

This  is  the  conclusion  which,  thinking  as  much  as  I 
can  on  the  true  essence  of  Christianity  and  the  true  state 
of  the  present  conflict  of  thought,  I  have  drawn  for  my- 
self It  is  the  conclusion  which  I  would  suggest  to  you 
to-night :  at  the  least,  I  would  ask  you  seriously  to  con- 
sider it,  as  it  is  in  itself,  not  as  it  is  clothed  in  thoughts 
or  words  of  mine. 

[I  have  not  thought  it  worth  while  to  alter  or  to  sup- 
plement this  lecture.  The  discussion  which  followed, 
often  marked  by  cleverness  and  evident  sincerity,  turned 
almost  entirely  on  a  number  of  detailed  objections,  chiefly 
dealing  with  some  of  the  "offences"  in  the  life  and  teach- 
ing of  Christ,  and  not  at  all  considering  the  principles  of 
His  character  as  a  whole.  It  showed  that  something 
was  needed  which  the  lecture  did  not  even  attempt  to  do. 
But  it  appeared  to  me  that  examination  of  separate  quo- 
tations and  single  events  in  His  Hfe  could  be  carried  out 
seriatim  only  in  discussion  or  commentary.  It  could  not 
have  been  attempted  within  the  limits  of  a  lecture ;  nor 
can  it  well  be  made  a  supplement  to  it.  Indeed,  it  may 
be  seen  that  the  argument  of  the  lecture,  whatever  its 
value  may  be,  occupies  a  wholly  different  ground.] 


wrviasiTrl 


%^i^^    ^£)f. 


'^'%; 


J  '       '     >'•''' sj 


% 


Wy 


'>>- 


■^: 


